[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote at about 09:37:16 -0500 on Wednesday, November 26, 2008: > "Jeffrey J. Kosowsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/26/2008 02:15:43 > PM: > > > > I'm still not sure why people say they need multi-GB of RAM and > multi-GHz > > > CPU's for their BackupPC servers. I *just* don't see why: I've got > a > > > pool >600GB on a *tiny* box (without compression, anyway). Maybe if > > > you've got >1TB of pool data or multi-millions of files you *might* > need a > > > little more RAM (and I don't think that is the case), but I *still* > don't > > > see why you'd need more than 1GB of RAM, and still no more CPU power. > > > > Again, you need a many-drive RAID array *way* more than you do need > CPU or > > > RAM. > > > > > > Maybe I'm the only person who's running BackupPC on a box this small. > But > > > I've got about a *dozen* of these boxes scattered around various > clients, > > > backing up between 10 and 600GB of data. They *all* run flawlessly. > > > > > Well, there are definitely people running BackupPC on smaller > > systems... > > > > A number of people are running BackupPC on small embedded systems like > > the d-link DNS-323 NAS device. > > That device has only 64MB of RAM of which 16MB is used as a ramdisk! > > It uses an arm processor running at about 400-500MHz and I don't think > > it even has a floating point processor. > > OK, that redefines "tiny". Anyone running it on a cell phone? :) > > Actually, my 2-year-old Treo 700p has the same CPU and memory! How about > a Linksys *router*? :) > > > Now at that level, I have found that memory makes a difference when I > > try to rsync the pool since rsync compiles a list of all the hard link > > inodes and that takes up (some) memory... > > We're just talking about running BackupPC normally, not rsyncing the > entire pool. Is your box configured for swap? If so, does it swap while > doing a backup? If not, then I feel guilty about *wasting* all that RAM: > after all, I'm giving it 512MB! :) > > Tim Massey
I have loaded it on the box and run it, but in practice, I run BackupPC on my Linux server and keep the pool on the NAS using NFS. Interestingly, I have found that it is *faster* to make even a *local* rsync copy of the pool by doing it over nfs rather than by doing it purely local on the dns-323 -- the reason is that the memory intensivity of such rsync copies outweighs the bandwidth limitations of my 100mbs link. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ 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/
