On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:20 PM, martin f krafft <madd...@madduck.net> wrote:
> also sprach Les Mikesell <lesmikes...@gmail.com> [2015-12-03 12:08 +1300]:
>> However, you might want to consider running an offsite instance of
>> backuppc to back up the same targets directly, using a vpn for the
>> connection if necessary. Both the storage and transfer would be
>> much more efficient that way.
>
> Hm, interesting idea, but there are two considerations preventing me
> from doing this:
>
> 1. I do not have an offsite host with the same amount of disk
> space available to me, nor the budget… hence I was looking at
> keeping just snapshots of the latest backups so that in case of
> e.g. a fire, I'd lose whatever's not on tape yet, but at least
> I'd have a reasonably up-to-date snapshot.
I think you are missing the point of the way backuppc stores data -
that is, the pool of hardlinks for identical content means that it
takes very little space to store a backup history since additional
runs only store the files that have changed. If you have duplicate
copies of files on several hosts, you might even need less storage for
the backuppc archive than you would for the latest snapshot of each
host stored separately. Also, if it mattered you would not need to
store the same amount of history at the offsite location.
> 2. Some external hosts that I backup to the main backup server are
> behind expensive links and shovel a lot of data already. I'd
> like to avoid doubling the traffic generated for backups. Hence
> I was looking at sifting the latest backup off the backup
> server.
If you use rsync, only the changes will be transmitted. If that is
still a big issue you might rsync over the expensive links to an
intermediate location where both the existing and offsite servers
could archive into backuppc. Disk space is relatively cheap now,
but it would add some complexity and more things to go wrong.
> But yes, doing it this way, and especially when using GnuPG to
> protect the snapshots out there, it'll be hard to minimise the
> amount of traffic generated between backup server and offsite
> storage. Not a concern per se as traffic between those too is
> virtually free and limitless, but it's just not necessary.
One other thing to keep in mind if you only keep one offsite tar image
and overwrite it daily - depending on how you perform the copy there
may be a point where neither the old or new remote copy is complete.
Guess when your main server will fail...
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go from Idea to Many App Stores Faster with Intel(R) XDK
Give your users amazing mobile app experiences with Intel(R) XDK.
Use one codebase in this all-in-one HTML5 development environment.
Design, debug & build mobile apps & 2D/3D high-impact games for multiple OSs.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=254741911&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
