On 2021-11-04 17:00, Anthony Chavez wrote:
On 11/4/21 3:09 PM, Norman Goldstein wrote:
On 2021-11-04 07:36, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 4:16 AM Anthony Chavez <a...@hexadecagram.org>
wrote:
Namely?
I use NFS for a lot of things. And apart from an abysmal security
model (that can fortunately be hardened with a lot of extra work),
I've had no complaints.
Think about the network activity that has to happen when you rsync a
file with small changes when it is stored over an NFS mount. The
whole thing has to be read over the network to find the differences -
when most of the point of rsync is to avoid that network traffic.
That's not your immediate problem but something to consider when
putting the backuppc pool on NFS.
Which NAS OS'es/protocols have worked best with backupc, in your
experience?
I have been using NFS on a NAS for years, as the pool location for
backuppc. It has had its ups and downs.
Seems to me that Les is talking about simply making good use of
bandwidth here.
I think the point he is making is that ANY network filesystem would
effectively double (or worse) the amount of traffic generated by
rsync. And it seems obvious that ideally, the storage pool should
reside on the same machine as the one running BackupPC and NFS, CIFS,
DFS, gluster, ceph, or any other network filesystem should be avoided
in general.
HOWEVER, what I neglected to mention in my initial post is that in MY
case, the NFS daemon is running on the host whereas the NFS client is
running in a VM *on*the*same*hardware.* So in my case, the performance
hit should have been more or less negligible, especially because this
hardware is dedicated to backups only.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure bhyve (FreeBSD's hypervisor) supports
virtio-9p yet so NFS is necessary in order to mount an external ZFS
dataset inside a VM. Last I checked into it, support was "just around
the corner" but regardless, TrueNAS's UI does not provide access to
that functionality.
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/wiki
Project:https://backuppc.github.io/backuppc/
I see. Thanks for the explanation. Bandwidth has not been a problem,
yet, but I will keep that in mind. I like having the backup isolated on
separate hardware. It seems it makes most sense to have the pool on the
disk of the backuppc server when the server is dedicated to backups i.e.
it behaves as a fancy NAS that can run backuppc server :-)_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/wiki
Project: https://backuppc.github.io/backuppc/
