indeed, these both seem like really good ways to approach this! i would definitely stop the backuppc service beforehand, and start it again afterwards. i know this doesn't stop backups in progress, but it's not a lot of computers, and by 3 am, all that needs to be done is done. and the rsync to external usb only takes a couple hours.
perhaps i should be adding the switch that deletes files that are no longer present as well? hmmm... i do understand that this may stop working at some point, but right now, the pool is only a few hundred gig's, running on a machine with 2 gig's of ram, and tests that i've done haven't had a problem. and i don't see the pool growing much beyond that. we'll see how it goes! thanks. On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Holger Parplies <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Tino Schwarze wrote on 2009-12-09 20:50:35 +0100 [Re: [BackupPC-users] a > slightly different question about rsync for?offsite backups]: > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 10:57:13AM -0800, Omid wrote: > > [...] > > > if the usb drive does not mount for whatever reason (either because it > > > hasn't been plugged in, or for another reason), the copy is going to go > to > > > the folder that's there, which is going to fill up the native drive > very > > > quickly. > > > > > > how can i avoid this? > > [...] > > > > Just create a file called "THIS_IS_THE_USB_DRIVE" on the drive itself, > > ... or a file "THIS_IS_THE_HOST_DRIVE" in the directory you are mounting to > (and invert the testing logic). Or, of course, read mountpoint(1) and do > something like > > mountpoint -q /mnt/usb && rsync -aHPp /data/ /mnt/usb/data/ > > It all depends on what you want to make easy and what you want to guard > against. > > All of that said, remember that rsyncing a BackupPC pool doesn't scale well > and may fail at some point in the future. Also, syncing a live pool will > probably not lead to a consistent copy. Depending on what you might be > using > the copy for, that may or may not be a problem (restoring from backups > completed before starting the copy will probably work - though parallel > chain > renumbering might mess things up (don't really know), but I wouldn't > recommend > using it (or a copy of it) to continue backing up to). > > Regards, > Holger > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Return on Information: > Google Enterprise Search pays you back > Get the facts. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > 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/ >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev
_______________________________________________ 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/
