Hi
This is more of a logistical question than a tehnical one.
I am currently setting up a remote (ie access from the web) file server,
lets call it server-1 for arguements sake.
I have also built an identical machine (server-2) which I intend to use
as a backup store using rsync to perform incremental backups of the
stored data on server-1.
I then want to implement a third machine (surprisingly called server-3
!) ,which will sit at a completly remote location to servers 1 + 2, and
which will then take incremental backups from server-2. Server-3 will
then ultimately dump data to tape at intervals to finish the full backup
process.
I think that all makes sense !
Anyway, running the rsync server on server-1, to back up to server-2 is
not a problem. The question is, would it be more efficient to have a
second rsync server running on server-2, to backup to server-3, which
would presumably save resources on server-1 when the process is running.
This would also give me the added protection that if server-1 fails,
server-2 should still maintain service that continues to create backups
of the data.
Or, would running an rsync server only on server-1 then staggering the
output to server 2 + 3 be a better solution?
I think I may have answered my own question just by writing it down
here, although any views would be appreciated.
Stu
_______________________________________________
Peterboro mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro
