Timothy J. Massey wrote:
> > > I am not sure a SAN/NAS with a clustered file system buys you much
> > > because each instance of BackupPC needs its own space (e.g. you cannot
> > > have multiple instances sharing the same pool space.
> >
> > Interesting concept... I bet you could if you could coordinate the
> > nightly cleanup run so nothing would be making links at the same time
> > that pool files were being deleted.
>
> I would love this feature: multiple BackupPC front-ends running against
> the same pool. It would be perfect for an active-active cluster. I've
> though about using two separate BackupPC servers with DRBD between them
> in an active/standby, but this would allow a load-balanced set of
> BackupPC servers with a common pool.
> Even better, I would pay a modest bounty for such a feature: multiple
> BackupPC machines working against the same pool, with a single
> configuration, backup queue, etc. between them.
If the storage is on an NFS server with reasonable semantics I don't see
why it would be any different in terms of file activity/contention than
multiple backup processes running on the same machine. Collisions in
creating a new file with the same name should result in a detectable
error. The only place you can go wrong is when you are removing pooled
files because the test of the link count and the removal aren't atomic.
The only new coding it might take would be to make the backuppc machines
see the same cpool directory but only their own other directories all on
the same mounted filesystem, and a way to interlock the backuppc_nightly
runs.
> Another way of doing it would be to have a way to replicate a backup
> from one server to another, where backup data could be pushed or pulled
> by the BackupPC processes on two different boxes without actually doing
> a normal backup from two different servers. Then I can have two online,
> active BackupPC servers with the same data.
>
> I'd be willing to pay a bounty for this one, too. An online way to
> replicate backups between multiple BackupPC servers.
I think solaris or *bsd (maybe OS X soon) with zfs sounds promising for
this with its incremental send/receive facility but I haven't tried it
yet to see if millions of hardlinks are an issue. I'm using a hot-swap
sata cage to raid-sync a 750 gig drive to rotate offsite periodically.
It's not very elegant but it works.
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
[email protected]
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
