[BackupPC-users] Matching files against the pool remotely.
Hello, I'm trying to optimize BackupPC for use over internet with a lot of client (say 100 per server). Clients run rsyncd and are connected via dsl of variable speed. Many discussions in this list helped me a lot. But I can't figure out one thing : Does BackupPC use rsync features to skip a file allready in the pool _before_ it uploaded it ? Or does he need to upload it first and then the file is matched against the pool, eventualy replaced by a hard link ? In the first case this will save bandwidth and disk, in the second case only disk space. Is BackupPC able to match a file remotely ? The Holy Doc says ( Barratt:Desing:operation:2 ): it checks each file in the backup to see if it is identical to an existing file from any previous backup of any PC. It does this without needed to write the file to disk. But it doesn't say without the need to upload the file in memory. I know a file will be skiped if it is present in the previous backup, but what appens if the file have been backed up for another host ? Thank you for your enlightenments. Malik. -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/
[BackupPC-users] SMB Restore Issues - Trailing slashes reversed
Hi all. I have backuppc installed and working as I want it too but I have an issue when trying to restore a windows backup. All permissions are correct and no failures except when restoring to a window machines. I think the problem is the trailing slashes. They are forward slashed instead of back slashed which windows uses. Original file/dir 172.16.10.222:/c$/Program Files/prog1/DataRetrieval 22_03_07.zip Will be restored to 172.16.10.222:/c$/Program Files/prog1/DataRetrieval 22_03_07.zip Now when I try to change the slashes during the restore procedure it produces this: 172.16.10.222:/c$/\Program Files\AES Energy Tracker/DataRetrieval 22_03_07.zip Is there some way to fix this? Any help will be much appreciated Regards, Crashinit6 ICT Support The City of London Academy -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Matching files against the pool remotely.
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Malik Recoing. wrote: The Holy Doc says ( Barratt:Desing:operation:2 ): it checks each file in the backup to see if it is identical to an existing file from any previous backup of any PC. It does this without needed to write the file to disk. But it doesn't say without the need to upload the file in memory. I know a file will be skiped if it is present in the previous backup, but what appens if the file have been backed up for another host ? It is required to be uploaded first as otherwise there's nothing to compare it to (yeah, I know, that's a pain[1]). It might theoretically be sufficient to let the remote side calculate a hash and compare it against the files in the pool with matching hashes, and then let rsync do full compares against all the matching hashes in the pool (since hash collisions happen), but I don't believe anyone has tried to code this up yet, and it would only be of limited uses in systems that were network bandwidth constrained rather than disk bandwidth constrained. [1] I just worked around this myself by copying a large set of files onto sneakernet (my USB key), copying them onto a directory on the local backup server, backing that directory up, then moving the corresponding directory in the backup tree into the previous backup of the remote system, so it will be picked up and compared against the same files when that remote system is next backed up. I find out tomorrow whether that actually worked :) -- TimC Computer screens simply ooze buckets of yang. To balance this, place some women around the corners of the room. -- Kaz Cooke, Dumb Feng Shui -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Matching files against the pool remotely.
Tim Connors tim.w.connors at gmail.com writes: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Malik Recoing. wrote: I know a file will be skiped if it is present in the previous backup, but what appens if the file have been backed up for another host ? It is required to be uploaded first as otherwise there's nothing to compare it to (yeah, I know, that's a pain[1]). It might theoretically be sufficient to let the remote side calculate a hash and compare it against the files in the pool with matching hashes, and then let rsync do full compares against all the matching hashes in the pool (since hash collisions happen), but I don't believe anyone has tried to code this up yet, and it would only be of limited uses in systems that were network bandwidth constrained rather than disk bandwidth constrained. I'm quite sure it will be an improvement for both. Globaly there will be no overhead. More : the hash calculation will be kind of clustered delegating it to the client. The matching of identical hash is anyway done by BackupPC_Link. Thus BackupPC_Link will became pointless in a rsync-only configuration. The disk and the network trafic will be reduced as many files won't be transfered at all. If such a feature exists, it will give BackupPC a magic touch, backing up a wole tree of well known files in a minute even over a slow network. What a pity I'm not fluent with perl... [1] I just worked around this myself by copying a large set of files onto sneakernet (my USB key), copying them onto a directory on the local backup server, backing that directory up, then moving the corresponding directory in the backup tree into the previous backup of the remote system, so it will be picked up and compared against the same files when that remote system is next backed up. I find out tomorrow whether that actually worked :) I tougth of a similar solution. When your client are mostly full system tree backups, you may have ready-to-copy backups of the differents OS tree. When a new client is added, you copy the corresponding OS directory as it was the first full backup. Malik. -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Matching files against the pool remotely.
Malik Recoing. wrote: I know a file will be skiped if it is present in the previous backup, but what appens if the file have been backed up for another host ? It is required to be uploaded first as otherwise there's nothing to compare it to (yeah, I know, that's a pain[1]). It might theoretically be sufficient to let the remote side calculate a hash and compare it against the files in the pool with matching hashes, and then let rsync do full compares against all the matching hashes in the pool (since hash collisions happen), but I don't believe anyone has tried to code this up yet, and it would only be of limited uses in systems that were network bandwidth constrained rather than disk bandwidth constrained. I'm quite sure it will be an improvement for both. Globaly there will be no overhead. More : the hash calculation will be kind of clustered delegating it to the client. The matching of identical hash is anyway done by BackupPC_Link. Thus BackupPC_Link will became pointless in a rsync-only configuration. The disk and the network trafic will be reduced as many files won't be transfered at all. There are two problems: one is that the remote agent is a standard rsync binary that knows nothing about backuppc's hashes; the other is that hash collisions are normal and expected - and disambiguated by a full data comparison. I tougth of a similar solution. When your client are mostly full system tree backups, you may have ready-to-copy backups of the differents OS tree. When a new client is added, you copy the corresponding OS directory as it was the first full backup. Yes, if your remote machines are essentially clones of each other, you could create their pc directories as clones with a tool that knows how to make a tree of hardlinks. A better solution might be to have a local machine at the site running backuppc and work out some way to get an offsite copy. If bandwidth is such an issue, you are also going to have trouble doing a restore. But, if you've followed this mail list very long you'd know that the 'offsite copy' problem doesn't have a good solution yet either. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Backuppc performance 3Mb
I tryed to backup via smb and via rsyncd but performance is always ~ 2Mb/sec I don't know if those perfomance are ok in my configuration, but it seems to me that are bad. Are your drives capable of better than 2Mb/sec sustained throughput? -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Backuppc performance 3Mb
Michael Stowe wrote: I tryed to backup via smb and via rsyncd but performance is always ~ 2Mb/sec I don't know if those perfomance are ok in my configuration, but it seems to me that are bad. Are your drives capable of better than 2Mb/sec sustained throughput? And if that is per-target, are you running several backups concurrently? More RAM might help, LVM hurts a bit. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Backuppc performance 3Mb
Just curious, what's the max sustained throughput that anyone has seen with their system? 2-3Mbit/s is 250KB/s which seems really slow. I'm in the process of setting up a local Backuppc server and now am concerned about performance. On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: Michael Stowe wrote: I tryed to backup via smb and via rsyncd but performance is always ~ 2Mb/sec I don't know if those perfomance are ok in my configuration, but it seems to me that are bad. Are your drives capable of better than 2Mb/sec sustained throughput? And if that is per-target, are you running several backups concurrently? More RAM might help, LVM hurts a bit. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/ -- David -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Backuppc performance 3Mb
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:27 PM, David Young randomf...@gmail.com wrote: Just curious, what's the max sustained throughput that anyone has seen with their system? 2-3Mbit/s is 250KB/s which seems really slow. I'm in the process of setting up a local Backuppc server and now am concerned about performance. I get 56MB/s (448mbps) over a gigE connection using tar over nfs for a backup client with mostly large files. -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Unexpected call BackupPC::Xfer::RsyncFileIO-unlink(...)
Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote at about 13:11:37 -0500 on Monday, November 2, 2009: Unexpected call BackupPC::Xfer::RsyncFileIO-unlink(cygwin/usr/share/man/man3/addnwstr.3x.gz) I encountered the above error in my backup logs - repeated hundreds of time though all interestingly only on different files in my C:\cygwin\usr\share\man\man3 directory. Now for context, this was part of a full backup after I reinstalled Windows on a laptop. I had been testing BackupPC before so I had interrupted BackupPC early in the backup several times before (and I believe the cygwin directory is placed early in the backup based on alphabetical order). Also, after interrupting a very partial backup, I noticed that BackupPC_link was running. So perhaps, this is 'undoing' a BackupPC_link operation that ran on a partial backup? In any case, I am curious to know what causes the error and what does it mean? Is it an error on my system (in which case maybe I should be looking at my system) or is it an error in backuppc? Note from the below quoted thread from 2005, Craig claims that the error is benign, but doesn't explain how/why. Well I just upgraded and reinstalled Fedora on my Linux server and ran a new full backup. Again I noticed dozens of these type errors. All of them appear to be symbolic links but the links both in the new full and in the previous full appear to be intact. Also, this occurred on only about 40 out of many hundreds of symbolic links on my system. I am curious about what could be causing this situation that seems to be: 1. Limited to symlinks 2. Seems to only occur after a change to the system (presumably rsync is seeing the same link with a different inode) 3. Only occurs on some links. Any thoughts? Thanks Brendan Simon writes: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 09:13:01 -0800 Could someone tell me what the following errors mean? Unexpected call BackupPC::Xfer::RsyncFileIO-unlink(john/aegis/CN.1.5.1.4.C117/images/CN-image.tar.gz) [ skipped 21 lines ] Unexpected call BackupPC::Xfer::RsyncFileIO-unlink(john/aegis/CN.1.5.1.4.C117/src/ethernetd/main.c) [ skipped 45 lines ] Unexpected call BackupPC::Xfer::RsyncFileIO-unlink(john/aegis/CN.1.5.1.4.C117/src/ethernetd/timer.c) [ skipped 41134 lines ] The error itself is benign. But for some reason BackupPC thinks that the existing file (ie: the one backed up in the previous full backup) is not a regular file. The file will be re-transferred. What happens when you browse the previous full backup and look at the file type of those three files? Craig -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ 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/ -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Slow link options
I was able to get a full backup on 3 of the 4 servers. Two of them I was able to take the backuppc machine to the location and the third it was small enough to be able to complete over the T1. However we have one remaining remote location that has approximately 309GB of data that needs backing up. This initial full will take anywhere in the range of 10-20 DAYS according to my numbers. However, we do have an rsync of that server on another in-house server. It is a complete rsync minus a few directories like /proc /var etc. So we don't have to take the backuppc machine 3 hours away, does anyone know if it would be possible to somehow setup backuppc to use the complete existing in-house rsync as the base for the initial full backup? The setup on the rsync backup is that the entire backup is stored in /server/servername. Since backuppc stores the files in relation to the root directory how would I move the files from /var/lib/backuppc/pc/rsync-server/0/f%2fserver%2fremoteserver to /var/lib/backuppc/pc/remoteserver/0/f%2f? Should it be as simple as moving the folders? Or is this even possible? On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Chris Robertson crobert...@gci.net wrote: Kameleon wrote: I have a few remote sites I am wanting to backup using backuppc. However, two are on slow DSL connections and the other 2 are on T1's. I did some math and roughly figured that the DSL connections, having a 256k upload, could do approximately 108MB/hour of transfer. With these clients having around 65GB each that would take FOREVER!!! I am able to take the backuppc server to 2 of the remote locations (the DSL ones) and put it on the LAN with the server to be backed up to get the initial full backup. What I am wondering is this: What do others do with slow links like this? I need a full backup at least weekly and incrimentals nightly. Is there an easy way around this? The feasibility of this depends entirely on the rate of change of the backup data. Once you get the initial full, rsync backups only transfer changes. Have a look at the documentation (http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/faq/BackupPC.html#backup_basics) for more details. Thanks in advance. Chris -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/ -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Matching files against the pool remotely.
Take a look at how Unison does it's compares. On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: Malik Recoing. wrote: I know a file will be skiped if it is present in the previous backup, but what appens if the file have been backed up for another host ? It is required to be uploaded first as otherwise there's nothing to compare it to (yeah, I know, that's a pain[1]). It might theoretically be sufficient to let the remote side calculate a hash and compare it against the files in the pool with matching hashes, and then let rsync do full compares against all the matching hashes in the pool (since hash collisions happen), but I don't believe anyone has tried to code this up yet, and it would only be of limited uses in systems that were network bandwidth constrained rather than disk bandwidth constrained. I'm quite sure it will be an improvement for both. Globaly there will be no overhead. More : the hash calculation will be kind of clustered delegating it to the client. The matching of identical hash is anyway done by BackupPC_Link. Thus BackupPC_Link will became pointless in a rsync-only configuration. The disk and the network trafic will be reduced as many files won't be transfered at all. There are two problems: one is that the remote agent is a standard rsync binary that knows nothing about backuppc's hashes; the other is that hash collisions are normal and expected - and disambiguated by a full data comparison. I tougth of a similar solution. When your client are mostly full system tree backups, you may have ready-to-copy backups of the differents OS tree. When a new client is added, you copy the corresponding OS directory as it was the first full backup. Yes, if your remote machines are essentially clones of each other, you could create their pc directories as clones with a tool that knows how to make a tree of hardlinks. A better solution might be to have a local machine at the site running backuppc and work out some way to get an offsite copy. If bandwidth is such an issue, you are also going to have trouble doing a restore. But, if you've followed this mail list very long you'd know that the 'offsite copy' problem doesn't have a good solution yet either. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/ -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Combine multiple Backuppc servers into one
To simplify what I am trying to accomplish I will explain it this way: We currently have 2 backuppc servers. Both have 2x 1TB drives in a Raid1 array. What I want to do is move all the drives into one machine and set it up as a Raid5. That would give us 3TB usable rather than 2TB usable. Hence why I need to move everything to one setup. Thanks for any guidance. On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Kameleon kameleo...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for that idea but that is not an option. I need to combine both backuppc machines into one physical backuppc machine. Both servers have 2 1TB drives in a raid1 if that matters. On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Shawn Perry redmo...@comcast.net wrote: You can use a virtual machine for each (I am using openvz via Proxmox with my backuppc, and it works perfectly). On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Kameleon kameleo...@gmail.com wrote: I have multiple backuppc servers that I would like to combine into one physical machine. Each of them have different clients they were backing up. But in an effort to save power and heat, we are trying to consolidate machines. Is there an easy way to combine multiple backuppc machines into one existing one? -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/ -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/ -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Combine multiple Backuppc servers into one
Kameleon wrote: To simplify what I am trying to accomplish I will explain it this way: We currently have 2 backuppc servers. Both have 2x 1TB drives in a Raid1 array. What I want to do is move all the drives into one machine and set it up as a Raid5. That would give us 3TB usable rather than 2TB usable. Hence why I need to move everything to one setup. Thanks for any guidance. There's no good way to merge existing pooled files if that is what you are asking. Or to convert a Raid1 to a Raid5 without losing the contents. I'd recommend building a new setup the way you want and holding on to the old systems for as long as you might have a need to restore from their older history, or perhaps generating tar images that you can store elsewhere with BackupPC_tarCreate. Once the new system has collected the history you need you can re-use the old drives. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Combine multiple Backuppc servers into one
I was afraid of that. Thanks for the reply. It may make better sense to have multiple servers for a bit anyways. Hopefully soon we will be getting a dedicated Dell server for this so I can just set it up to do backups and leave the current ones in archive mode until at such a time that the data is outdated. Thank you very much. On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: Kameleon wrote: To simplify what I am trying to accomplish I will explain it this way: We currently have 2 backuppc servers. Both have 2x 1TB drives in a Raid1 array. What I want to do is move all the drives into one machine and set it up as a Raid5. That would give us 3TB usable rather than 2TB usable. Hence why I need to move everything to one setup. Thanks for any guidance. There's no good way to merge existing pooled files if that is what you are asking. Or to convert a Raid1 to a Raid5 without losing the contents. I'd recommend building a new setup the way you want and holding on to the old systems for as long as you might have a need to restore from their older history, or perhaps generating tar images that you can store elsewhere with BackupPC_tarCreate. Once the new system has collected the history you need you can re-use the old drives. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/ -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Unexpected call BackupPC::Xfer::RsyncFileIO-unlink(...)
Hi, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote on 2009-12-18 15:36:48 -0500 [Re: [BackupPC-users] Unexpected call?BackupPC::Xfer::RsyncFileIO-unlink(...)]: Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote at about 13:11:37 -0500 on Monday, November 2, 2009: Unexpected call BackupPC::Xfer::RsyncFileIO-unlink(cygwin/usr/share/man/man3/addnwstr.3x.gz) [...] Note from the below quoted thread from 2005, Craig claims that the error is benign, but doesn't explain how/why. [...] I am curious about what could be causing this situation [...] if you're curious about what is causing a benign warning message, you're probably on your own for the most part. I can supply you with one casual observation and one tip: I think I saw that warning when I changed from tar to rsync XferMethod. As you know, tar and rsync encode the file type plain file differently in attrib files (rsync has a bit for it, tar (like stat()) doesn't and simply takes the absense of a bit for a special file type to mean plain file). When rsync compares remote and local file type (remote from remote rsync instance, local from attrib file generated by tar XferMethod), it assumes a plain file changed its type, so it removes the local copy (if that sounds strange, remember that File::RsyncP mimics plain rsync, which *would* delete the local file; with BackupPC's storage backend, that doesn't make sense, hence the warning) and transfers the remote file without a local copy to compare to. Or something like that. If you want to know more, look at where the source code generates the warning message (well, that's stated *in* the warning message) and where that code is called from (presumably File::RsyncP) and in which circumstances. Good luck. Since you asked, don't forget to report back ;-). Regards, Holger -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ 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/
