Re: [BackupPC-users] large archives and scalability issues
11:17am, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: Why should any filesystem perform seeks better (when writing) than any other filesystem? I imagine it could be true only if: - kernel would cache a large amount of writes - kernel would commit these writes not in a FIFO manner, but whenever it sees that the blocks on the underlying device are close to each other Can ZFS do it? zfs should be faster on writes because it never overwrites any data in place; instead, it finds an available bit of disk, writes its data, then updates the metablocks. Still unless a fs is very poorly written, you shouldn't see more than a few percent different between filesystems. The physical disk will almost always be your bottleneck. Paul - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ 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] Ressources Server (BackupPC + Nagios + Cacti)
In that case: 1) find a job where your boss has a clue and/or 2) ask your boss what happens when nagios goes down. Does he expect it to notify you that it's down? Paul 9:31am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Thanks a lot for your answer. It's interresting. I'm sorry but my IT manager doesn't want to have several servers for linux softwares. I have to configure just one server with Nagios, Cacti and BackupPC. So I have to propose a configuration of server to support it. Thanks a lot. Regards, Romain Paul Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23/01/2008 18:37 A Romain PICHARD/Mondeville/VIC/[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc BackupPC users' mailing list backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net Objet Re: [BackupPC-users] Ressources Server (BackupPC + Nagios + Cacti) [original message lost, sorry] It doesn't really matter what the specs of your box are, putting a monitoring solution on the same box as a production server is a bad idea. What happens when that box fails? What's going to notify you? Nagios won't, since it'll be down, too. I'm not sure about Cacti, but I can tell you that nagios can run pretty comfortably on a fairly low-end machine. We monitor about 100 machines, and about 350 services with Nagios, on a VM. Use the big box for BackupPC, and use some hardware that you retired because it got too slow for Nagios. While you're at it, setup at least two Nagios servers so you have redundancy. Otherwise you're in the same situation that I mentioned before: the Nagios box goes down and there's nothing to notify you about it. Paul SC2N -S.A Si?ge Social : 2, Rue Andre Boulle - 94000 Cr?teil - 327 153 722 RCS Cr?teil This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). The information contained therein may be confidential or privileged, and its disclosure or reproduction is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please return it immediately to its sender at the above address and destroy it. Never ascribe to malice what can perfectly well be explained by stupidity. -Anonymous - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/___ 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] Ressources Server (BackupPC + Nagios + Cacti)
[original message lost, sorry] It doesn't really matter what the specs of your box are, putting a monitoring solution on the same box as a production server is a bad idea. What happens when that box fails? What's going to notify you? Nagios won't, since it'll be down, too. I'm not sure about Cacti, but I can tell you that nagios can run pretty comfortably on a fairly low-end machine. We monitor about 100 machines, and about 350 services with Nagios, on a VM. Use the big box for BackupPC, and use some hardware that you retired because it got too slow for Nagios. While you're at it, setup at least two Nagios servers so you have redundancy. Otherwise you're in the same situation that I mentioned before: the Nagios box goes down and there's nothing to notify you about it. Paul - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ 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] Ressources Server (BackupPC + Nagios + Cacti)
6:20pm, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote: On 01/23 11:37 , Paul Archer wrote: Use the big box for BackupPC, and use some hardware that you retired because it got too slow for Nagios. I see what you're saying. Put big disks in the older hardware. Actually, I meant what you say below: use the big iron for you backupps, and the older machine for Nagios. Paul I would actually say that you're better off using the more powerful hardware for backuppc; backuppc will use all the CPU and RAM you can get. The more hardware you have, the faster backups will go, and the more you can do in parallel (tho I've found that even on really fast hardware, more than 2 backups in parallel causes too much disk contention). -- - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ 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 on file systems that don't support hard links?
8:32am, Greg Smith wrote: Thanks to all for the replies. I've read all the backuppc docs and realized that hard links were an integral part of the design so I thought the answer to my question would be no but thought I'd ask. Since the principle reason for using hardlinks in backuppc is to use space more efficently, I was hoping that there was some hack (e.g., setting HardLinkMax to 1) that would work but use more disk space. There is no h/w interface into the NAS other than two 1GB network links (no iSCSI) and I don't think (I've got a call into the tech support to confirm) that it supports NFS. The only way that I know of mounting the device is via samba/cifs. Since both samba cifs support hard links it might be the device does too with some undocumented setting, we'll see what tech support has to say. iSCSI is software, not hardware (internet SCSI)--so an ethernet port is all you need (from a hardware standpoint). If you can't get hard links over samba/cifs, I doubt you'll be able to have them through NFS. It sounds like the backing filesystem doesn't support them. Just what make/model is this creature, anyway? In the meantime, I'm taking Dan's suggestion of a loopback fs. loopback is what my money's on... Paul - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ 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 on file systems that don't support hard links? - More info
If you don't have any choice in the NAS (ie. you can't reformat it, take it apart, etc), then you could create one huge file on it, create an ext3 (or reiserfs, or xfs, or zfs) filesystem on it, and loopback mount it. Or maybe the NAS has the capability to share out space via iSCSI? Paul 7:53pm, Greg Smith wrote: In reading my previous message (below) I realize I didn't provide much information about what I'm trying to do. I have an NAS (that doesn't support hard links) mounted on /var/lib/backuppc. Here's the /etc/fstab entry: //nas/backup/var/lib/backuppc cifs \ credentials=/var/lib/backuppc/.smbpasswd,uid=backuppc,gid=backups 0 0 since backuppc uses hard links in pool, cpool, etc., this gives thousands of MakeFileLink errors. I'm using tar as the transport mechanism. I'm not able to think of a way of using this device (which has lots of space) and backuppc and would appreciate any suggestions. Thanks, Greg Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:04:57 -0800 (PST) From: Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC on file systems that don't support hard links? I've been reading the archives and searching the web all day and haven't been able to find an answer to this so I apologize in advance if it's something I should have been able to figure out. Is there a way to configure or use backuppc with a file system that DOES NOT support hard links? The file system in question (a NAS) has gobs of space (3TB) so space is not an issue but I've confirmed multiple times that it doesn't support hard links via either cifs or samba. I've also verified that the OS I'm running (linux/ubuntu) does correctly create hard links on a windows XP file system via samba. Thanks for any help or suggestions. Greg - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/___ 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/ - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. --- --In 1555, Nostradamus wrote:-- -- Come the millennium, month 12, -- -- In the home of greatest power, -- -- The village idiot will come forth -- -- To be acclaimed the leader. -- --- - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ 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] Newbie: excessive backup size for fist full backup (12GB data becomes a 130GB backup?)
11:20am, Les Mikesell wrote: Mike Mrozek wrote: Greeting BackupPC users: I am new to linux (using Ubuntu v7.10) and to using BackupPC (v3.1.0). I do not understand the BacupPC behavior I observe during a full backup of my client. This is the first attempt, no other backup data files exist on the BacupPC server. My client has 12GB of data and I would expect 12GB of data to be copied and saved onto the BacupPC server. The backup job which I started manually vice scheduled begins copying files and consumes 130+GB of free space on my BackupPC server before completing. I needed to manually stop the backup job before running out of disk space on my BackupPC server. I can't imagine that this is normal operation. I've tried searching for similar problems as this in this mailing list archive and by googling without any luck. You probably have a large sparse file on the client that isn't handled very well by the copy mechanism. On unix filesystems you can seek past the end of a file and write, creating a file that appears to be very long but without using the intermediate space where nothing has been written. In particular, many 64-bit linux versions have a /var/log/lastlog file that appears to be 1.2 terabytes in size as an artifact of indexing it by uid numbers and using -1 for the nfsnobody id. It's generally not important to back this file up, so if that is the problem you can just exclude it. Another possibility is that you have remote mounts that are being backed up (--one-file-system for rsync is your friend), or some misconfiguration in your config file. If you don't locate any large sparse files, and you don't have any remote mounts, send us the *relevant* parts of your config file(s), and we'll see if there's anything messed up there. Paul - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ 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] Idea For BackupPC Improvement
12:56pm, Les Mikesell wrote: Jon Forrest wrote: One reason why I think my idea has promise is because this is how all the commercial backup products I've ever used work. Adding this feature to BackupPC would just bring it closer to the commercial backup products. Don't those products all require a client side agent, at least for cross-platform operation? I think it would theoretically be possible to get a target directory listing with the transfer methods that backuppc supports but it wouldn't be trivial. -- As long as you are using ssh for access to the client, you don't need a client-side agent. Personally, I don't know if I would use it myself, but it's a good idea. Paul - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ 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] remote replication with unison instead of rsync?
5:45pm, Les Mikesell wrote: dan wrote: i have been experimenting with this and think i have a workable solution. only problem is that nexenta is a bit of a pain to get backuppc running on. just seems to have a lot of little issues with backuppc 3.1 (running nexenta a7) i just downloaded solaris express to see if i have better luck with it and backuppc. The problem I have with nexenta is that it doesn't see any of the SATA controllers I have. Is there something else with zfs and better driver support? -- I don't know if it has gotten far enough to be really usable, but the zfs-fuse project is out there: http://www.wizy.org/wiki/ZFS_on_FUSE It's relatively slow, and not all the features are implemented, but it should do the job as far as keeping your data safe. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ 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] Direct restore / Multiple hosts
What version are you running? Ubuntu 7.10 comes with 3.0.0, pretty much everything else comes with 2.x. Paul 5:53pm, Trygve Vea wrote: Hi! I've just set up backuppc for the first time, and I'm experiencing something I consider unexpected behaviour. I just want to mention that this is the Debian-packaged version of backuppc. If I in /etc/backuppc/hosts have more than one host specified, I will get the following error message when I want to execute a direct restore (through the web interface): Direct restore has been disabled for host hostname. Please select one of the other restore options. ... this message will always specify the same hostname even though I want to restore a different host. If I change /etc/backuppc/hosts to contain only one host --- regardless which host it contains --- restore works. Is this a known bug? Configuration error maybe? Has anyone else experienced this? -- Trygve Vea - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ 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/ ---Brady's First Law of Problem Solving: When confronted by a difficult problem, you can solve it more easily by reducing it to the question, How would the Lone Ranger have handled this? - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ 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] Full backup bandwidth reduction
What kind of specs does your server have (besides running ZFS)? That is, processor, memory, etc. I've got a P-III 500Mhz with 512MB RAM as my backup server. It also is my file server (I want to split those into separate machines, but I can't right now), with about 250GB of data. (Most of that is images/videos/mp3s, so I leave compression off.) It takes 30 hours to do a full doing an rsync to itself, and incrementals take about 3 hours. That's a fair bit of data for a slow machine, so I'm trying to get an idea of what I can do to speed things up. And FWIW, I am a fan of ZFS, but until I get another box, I can't really switch to it. Paul 7:53am, dan wrote: I backup about 6-7Gb during a full backup of one of my sco unix servers using rsync over ssh and it takes under an hour. 4-5Gb on an very old unix machine using rsync on an nfs mount takes just over an hour. full backups of my laptop is about 8Gb and takes about 15minutes though it is on gigabit and so is the backuppc server BUT the unix servers are not on gigabit, just 100Mb/s ethernet. On Nov 27, 2007 12:52 AM, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Toni Van Remortel wrote: And I have set up BackupPC here 'as-is' in the first place, but we saw that the full backups, that ran every 7 days, took about 3 to 4 days to complete, while for the same hosts the incrementals finished in 1 hour. That's why I got digging into the principles of BackupPC, as I wanted to know why the full backups don't works 'as expected'. Well, I can tell you BackupPC using rsync as the Xfermethod is working just fine for us. The incrementals don't take days, all seems normal. I hope you'll be able to find the problem in your setup. Nils Breunese. - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ 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/ --- Perl elegant? Perl is like your grandfather's garage. Sure, he kept most of it tidy to please your grandmother but there was always one corner where you could find the most amazing junk. And some days, when you were particularly lucky, he'd show you how it worked. --Shawn Corey shawn.corey [at] sympatico.ca-- -10921 days until retirement!- - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ 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] define destination dir
Look in the config.pl file (if debian, it's probably /etc/backuppc/config.pl). If you have four 160GB drives, I would suggest using MD/LVM to create one large logical volume. The best arrangement would probably be something like a RAID 5 with all four drives, and maybe an LVM volume on top of that. Paul Tomorrow, Holm Kapschitzki wrote: Hello, i habe 4 older ide devices a 160 gb and i want to backup a few client hosts. So i cannot use one single device for backuppc. I read the doku and read something of configuring topdir to config the path where the data is backupt. On the other hand i read on debian package topdir is hardcoded. So my question is how to define different dir (at the different config files) for each host where i can backup the data? greets holm - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ 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/ ___ Can't you recognize bullshit? Don't you think it would be a useful item to add to your intellectual toolkits to be capable of saying, when a ton of wet steaming bullshit lands on your head, 'My goodness, this appears to be bullshit'? _Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon__ -10921 days until retirement!- - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ 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] Hierarchy/Groups
12:08pm, Renke Brausse wrote: Hello, Is it possible to setup a sort of groupings for servers such that there is only one set of config per group? not directly in one set (as far as I know...) but if you use backuppc 3+ you can use the copy-host-functionality of the webGui - so you can use one model host for every of your defined groups and just copy the configuration. Renke Or you could simply symlink the individual machines' config.pl files together. Then changing one changes all of them--which would be an issue if you're simply copying them with the GUI. Paul - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/ ___ 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] No ping possible, what to do?
8:59am, Toni Van Remortel wrote: Hi all, As most of my systems in the backup are not responding to 'ping', I've set the $PingCmd to /bin/true (as documented). The problem now is, that when a system is down, BackupPC still gets successful ping's and tries to backup the system. After a while, the blackout period is reached, and backup attempts stop (because of successful ping's). But I want the system to be in the backup when the system is up again (mostly I fix the issue in the morning, so my current solution is to start a manual backup). Is there another option for the $PingCmd to use? An SSH check from the Nagios project? An SMB check? -- I think you've got a good idea with Nagios. Go to the downloads section off www.nagios.org, and get the plugins. You can use check_tcp, which will give you an exit status of zero if it connects, and 1 or 2 (configurable) if it doesn't. It's also very easy to set the timeout values you want to use. Paul - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/ ___ 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 and shh help
1:49am, tts wrote: Guys I really been struggling with shh and getting backuppc to log to the client with no password. Done it before but just cant remember how (done it by luck). I just cant get my head around how the key stuff works and where you are suppose to generate the key? server side? were backuppc runs ? both machines? place the key where? I found some guides at google but its hard to follow when you don't know how its suppose to work.I just cant get my head around it. If one could make a animated video of where exactly the keys exchange. I will donate a reasonable amount to you or what ever oginisation you like. Please get back to me even if the answer is no, a yes would be great ;) I'm very greatfull to the backuppc creators Backuppc is simply the best *hands on heart*. First, before we tackle your question: Trim your posts. You replied to a digest, and the entire digest (which was not relevent to your question at all) was part of your post. That just wastes bandwidth, and clutters things up. Be careful how you send your messages. Somehow you managed things so I got a solid four copies of your email. One will suffice. Now, on to your question: The 'backuppc' user on your server (S) needs to connect to the root account on your client (C). So su to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and run ssh-keygen -t dsa When it asks you for a passphrase, just hit enter. You'll end up with a ~backuppc/.ssh directory with (at least) two files: id_dsa (your private key) id_dsa.pub (your public key) Copy the public key to the .ssh directory of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Make sure you rename it first! Otherwise, you're likely to overwrite root's own public key, which would be BAD. I recommend a name like id_dsa.pub-backuppc Then add this key to the authorized_keys file. Safest way is: cd ~root/.ssh #(this is on the client, remember) cat id_dsa.pub-backuppc authorized_keys (Make sure that's TWO 'greater-than's!) Now go back to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] account, and run: ssh -l root client(where 'client' is your client machine, of course). When it asks you to accept the client's key, type 'yes'. You should be logged into the client as root. If that doesn't work, make sure root logins are not disallowed on the server. (Usually, /etc/ssh/sshd_config). Also, check permissions on root's .ssh directory and the authorized_keys file. ssh is picky about perms. Repeat the copy and connect part for each client you have. Don't regenerate your keys! Now, there's one thing I've kind of glossed over. Doing this means that anyone who has or can gain access to the backuppc account on your server owns every client you have, since that account has root access to all those machines. You can mitigate this somewhat by using rsyncd on the client, and most importantly, by setting up forced commands in your clients' authorized_keys file. There has been some discussion on this mailing list about that, and you can Google for the relevent terms and find plenty of info on the subject. Paul - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/ ___ 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] Question about LVM restore
If I understand you correctly (you have LVM volumes on disks other than the failed one), then during a reinstall (or even just booting off a live CD) those volumes will be recognized. If you provide mount points and don't reformat them, the data should be available without a problem. Try booting off a live CD and you'll see the volumes get scanned and recognized. Paul 11:10am, Gene Horodecki wrote: Can anyone comment regarding how easy it is to build a Ubuntu volume group on a new Ubuntu install?? Say we have the following scenario: - Ubuntu native disk - Slave disk 1, part of a volume group with single LV used for backup - Slave disk 2, part of a volume group with single LV used for backup Say your Ubuntu native disk goes and Ubuntu needs to be rebuilt.? Is it possible to import both slave disks back into a volume group and retrieve the data that was on them before?? Are there any precautions prior to the problem which must be taken in order to allow a restore down the road?? Thanks! - witzelsucht (vit'sel-zoocht) [Ger.] A mental condition characteristic of frontal lobe lesions and marked by the making of poor jokes and puns and the telling of pointless stories, at which the patient himself is intensely amused. From Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 26th edition. - -10940 days until retirement!-- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/___ 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] Designing a BackupPC system to include off-sitebackups
You should look into partimage (www.partimage.org). It's going to be faster than dd for any disk that isn't 100% full. Another option would be to rsync your backuppc directory somewhere else. That has the advantage of lower bandwith (since the OP wanted off-site replication). Just don't forget to use the --hard-links option to preserve all those hard links. pma 10:46am, Christian Lahti wrote: I basically have the following, works for me :) dd_rescue is a version of dd that gracefully handles errors. YMMV, use at your own risk :) /Christian Setup Details /dev/sda1 mounted on /export/backups/ (2TB volume) /dev/sdb1 mounted on /export/offsite/ (2TB volume) Everything that usually goes in /var/lib/BackupPC is symlinked to /export/backups, so both the backups and pool are on the big volume. Every Friday morning I run the following script: #!/bin/bash # # updateoffsite.sh # This script rsyncs the backups to the removable # volume in an image file # # 2007-06-27 [EMAIL PROTECTED] # Initial version # 2007-06-29 [EMAIL PROTECTED] # added logging for stderr and stdout # 2007-07-20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] # changed script to use dd_rescue # umount /export/backups mount /export/offsite #stop BackupPC service BackupPC stop echo begin image echo `date` #now dd to an image /usr/bin/dd_rescue -a -v /dev/sdb1 /export/offsite/backup.img echo end image echo `date` umount /export/offsite mount /export/backups mount /export/offsite service BackupPC start -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Utley Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 8:48 AM To: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [BackupPC-users] Designing a BackupPC system to include off-sitebackups I have setup a couple BackupPC systems now, and they have been working great for me. Now I'm looking to install yet another, but with a twist. I'd like to setup an off-site backup, which would essentially be a carbon copy of everything BackupPC maintains locally. Is there a straightforward way to accomplish this? Thanks, Chris Utley -- Christopher J. Utley Director of Technology Market Intelligence Group PH: 513.333.0676 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/ ___ 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/ Checked by MailWasher server (www.Firetrust.com) WARNING. No FirstAlert account found. To reduce spam further activate FirstAlert. This message can be removed by purchasing a FirstAlert Account. - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/ ___ 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/ echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln256%Pln256/snlbx]sb3135071790101768542287578439snlbxq'|dc (It's safe) -10941 days until retirement!- - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/ ___ 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] 4 x speedup with one tweak to freebsd server
Looks like a good tip. Unfortunately, since I'm running a reiserfs filesystem on Linux, it doesn't help me directly. But it does bring up a good point: does anyone know of any filesystem tweaks for reiserfs that might bring similar improvements in this situation of accessing millions of small files? Paul Yesterday, John Pettitt wrote: I'm posting this to the list so people searching for FreeBSD optimizations will find it in the archives. I finally got around to looking at why my FreeBSD server was only backing up at about 2.5MB/sec using tar with clients with lots of small files. Using my desktop (a Mac PRO) as the test subject backups were running at about 2.5MB/sec or more accurately 25 files a second. The server (FreeBSD 6.2 with a 1.5 TB UFS2 raid 10 on a 3ware card) was disk bound. Running the ssh / tar combo from the command line directed to /dev/null gave close to 25MB/sec confirming that it wasn't the client or the network. I've done the normal optimization stuff (soft updates, noatime). After a lot of digging I discovered vfs.ufs.dirhash_maxmem The ufs filesystem hashes directories to speed up access when there are lots of files in a directory (as happens with the pool) however the maximum memory allocated to the hash by default is 2 MB! This is way too small and the hash buffers were thrashing on almost every pool file open. (for those who care sysctl -a | egrep dirhash will show the min, max and current hash usage - if current is equal to max you've probably got it set too small) On my box setting the vfs.ufs.dirhash_maxmem to 128M using sysctl did the trick - the system is using 72M for the whole pool tree (2.5 million files) and backups are now running at about 10 MB/sec and 100 files a second! (this is now compute bound on the server which is an old P4 2.6 box). John I've started referring to the action against Iraq as Desert Storm 1.1, since it reminds me of a Microsoft upgrade: it's expensive, most people aren't sure they want it, and it probably won't work. -- Kevin G. Barkes -10942 days until retirement!- - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/ ___ 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] 4 x speedup with one tweak to freebsd server
4:19pm, Toni Van Remortel wrote: Paul Archer wrote: Looks like a good tip. Unfortunately, since I'm running a reiserfs filesystem on Linux, it doesn't help me directly. But it does bring up a good point: does anyone know of any filesystem tweaks for reiserfs that might bring similar improvements in this situation of accessing millions of small files? I mount my /backup raid with noatime and notail options. Don't forget nodiratime. I was thinking more of reisertunefs tweaks or similar, but it is supposed to be optimized for a lot of small files to begin with, so there might not be anything else (short of buying more disks). Paul - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/ ___ 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] Excluding folders per host
10:30am, Jake Solid wrote:
Hello,
I currently have backup PC running and backing up 7 different Linux servers.
Inside the config.pl I have the directive $Conf{BackupFilesExclude} to
exclude a list of folders and subfolders. In the list I have the Backup PC
to exclude the /var/log/spooler* for all the servers. The problem is that I
need to back the content of /var/log/spooler on 1 of the 7 Linux servers.
How can I accomplish this using the same config.pl ?
Thanks in advanced,
Well, you might write some Perl code that uses the $host variable to do a
substitution (although I haven't tested that myself). And as Craig Barratt
has mentioned, if you change your configs through the CGI interface, custom
Perl in your config file won't survive.
Otherwise, you'll need to create a config.pl for just that host, and put the
appropriate config(s) in there.
Paul
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/
___
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] Anybody comming to LISA 2007 in Dallas next week?
I'll be there (here, actually, since I'm local). Paul 11:46pm, John Rouillard wrote: Hi all: Is anybody coming to the LISA conference http://www.usenix.org/events/lisa07/index.html in Dallas next week? I was thinking of scheduling a BOF (birds of a feather) session where we could swap information, tips, wishes etc. Anybody interested? -- -- rouilj John Rouillard System Administrator Renesys Corporation 603-643-9300 x 111 - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/ ___ 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/ My parents just came back from a planet where the dominant lifeform had no bilateral symmetry, and all I got was this stupid F-Shirt. -10942 days until retirement!- - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/ ___ 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] upgrading from 2.1.2 to 3.0.0
8:04am, Keith Edmunds wrote: On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 21:26:18 -0600 (CST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: This is for home use--important files (to me) but not a mission critical situation or anything. Files are either a) important and thus backed up b) unimportant but being backed up as part of a test or c) unimportant or already backed up. I'm not sure how the developers are supposed to deal with files that are important but not mission critical. Either you want them backed up or you don't, and you need to accept responsibility for determining which. Not meaning to be rude, but users of backup software often try to rate the importance of files on some kind of sliding scale whereas, in reality, it's pretty much black and white: they matter or they don't. I think you misread me. Of course my files are important, and of course they matter. What I meant was that this is for home use. If things go wonky, and I can't back anything up for a week (or I have to jump through massive hoops to restore something), I don't have my boss screaming at me because a mission-critical server isn't protected. In other words, my files are on the line, but my job isn't. And I never said (or even implied) that I wanted the developers to classify my data as important but not mission critical--or in any particular way. I was looking for a classification of the beta software. Ie. data-safe but there are some nits, or getting there but restores have been a problem, or whatever. Paul - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/ ___ 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] Changing rsync options for different shares.
9:08pm, John Rouillard wrote:
Hi all:
We tell our users that ~user/bak will be backed up and they can
symbolically link in any directories/files they want backed up.
To make this work with backuppc and rsync, it means adding the -L or
--copy-links option to the rsync command. However I only want it when
backing up those particular directories (shares) and not say when
backing up / or /usr.
Does anybody have any ideas for modifying the rsync options on a per
share basis? I was thinking of something similar to the structure for:
$Conf{BackupFilesExclude} = {
'c' = ['/temp', '/winnt/tmp'], # these are for 'c' share
'*' = ['/junk', '/dont_back_this_up'], # these are for other shares
};
Does this seem reasonable? Then I could do:
$Conf{RsyncShareArgs} = {
'/home/user1/bak' = ['--copy-links' ],
};
The only workaround I can thing of right now is to define a new host
and override the $Conf{RsyncArgs} in there. However this is less than
optimal since I can't inherit the RsyncArgs from the main
configuration file and augment them, I have to maintain them
separately from the main config file.
This is also a problem when I have hosts over the wan and I have to
bandwidth limit them. I can't just add in some way --bwlimit=128 I
have to duplicate the entire $Conf{RsyncArgs} variable definition.
Does anybody have another workaround?
--
I haven't tested this, but I believe the order is to source the main config
file and then source the config file for the individual host being backed up
So you should be able to do something like this:
$Conf{RsyncArgs} = [ @$Conf{RsyncArgs}, '--copy-links' ];
Since you're dealing with Perl, you could probably create a file with a list
of slow hosts, read that into a hash (say, %slow_hosts, since I don't like
CamelCase)), and then you can say:
$Conf{RsyncArgs} = [ @$RConf{RsyncArgs}, '--bwlimit=128' ] if defined
$slow_hosts{$host};
Paul
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/
___
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] Changing rsync options for different shares.
Tomorrow, John Rouillard wrote:
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 07:41:51PM -0600, Paul Archer wrote:
9:08pm, John Rouillard wrote:
We tell our users that ~user/bak will be backed up and they can
symbolically link in any directories/files they want backed up.
To make this work with backuppc and rsync, it means adding the -L or
--copy-links option to the rsync command. However I only want it when
backing up those particular directories (shares) and not say when
backing up / or /usr.
Does anybody have any ideas for modifying the rsync options on a per
share basis? I was thinking of something similar to the structure for:
$Conf{BackupFilesExclude} = {
[...]
The only workaround I can thing of right now is to define a new host
and override the $Conf{RsyncArgs} in there. However this is less than
optimal since I can't inherit the RsyncArgs from the main
configuration file and augment them, I have to maintain them
separately from the main config file.
This is also a problem when I have hosts over the wan and I have to
bandwidth limit them. I can't just add in some way --bwlimit=128 I
have to duplicate the entire $Conf{RsyncArgs} variable definition.
I haven't tested this, but I believe the order is to source the main config
file and then source the config file for the individual host being backed
up So you should be able to do something like this:
$Conf{RsyncArgs} = [ @$Conf{RsyncArgs}, '--copy-links' ];
You are partly correct. The main config file is sourced first followed
by the per host config file. However I tried to access
@$Conf{RsyncShareName} in the per host .pl file and found out the
%Conf array is undefined. I think what is happening is this:
In BackuPC::Storage::Text
use vars qw(%Conf);
...
sub ConfigDataRead
{
my($s, $host) = @_;
my($ret, $mesg, $config, @configs);
#
# TODO: add lock
#
my $conf = {};
my $configPath = $s-ConfigPath($host);
push(@configs, $configPath) if ( -f $configPath );
foreach $config ( @configs ) {
%Conf = ();
if ( !defined($ret = do $config) ($! || $@) ) {
$mesg = Couldn't open $config: $! if ( $! );
$mesg = Couldn't execute $config: $@ if ( $@ );
$mesg =~ s/[\n\r]+//;
return ($mesg, $conf);
}
%$conf = ( %$conf, %Conf );
}
...
@configs is the global config followed by the per host config, but
notice that %Conf is set to the empty array, and appended to %conf
overwriting any elements in %conf that are the same as options in
%Conf. This is how it accumlates the config entries.
Since $conf is a lexically scoped variable it's contents aren't
available in the do config clause. I was thinking of changing the my
%conf to local %conf so I could get it's values in the config files
and use:
$Conf{RsyncArgs} = [ @$conf{RsyncArgs}, '--copy-links' ];
but I am not sure of the collateral effects of this change.
That does complicate things. Perhaps using Data::Dumper to spit out
everything that's set when the per-machine config.pl is called would reveal
something useful.
It might also be possible to set your own variable(s) in the main config
file that could then be accessed later on.
Since you're dealing with Perl, you could probably create a file with a
list of slow hosts, read that into a hash (say, %slow_hosts, since I don't
like CamelCase)), and then you can say:
$Conf{RsyncArgs} = [ @$RConf{RsyncArgs}, '--bwlimit=128' ] if defined
$slow_hosts{$host};
I assume $RConf was a typo and you meant $Conf?
Exactly.
Paul
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/
___
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] upgrading from 2.1.2 to 3.0.0
I installed backuppc on a (K)Ubuntu 7.04 machine, not realizing that I was getting version 2.1.2. I plan on upgrading the machine to 7.10, and upgrading backuppc to 3.0.0. Two questions: 1) Is there anything particular I should worry about or watch out for after the upgrade? 2) Should I use the packaged 3.0.0, or is 3.1.0beta1 worth going to? (This is for home use--important files (to me) but not a mission critical situation or anything.) Thanks, Paul - Welcome to downtown Coolsville--population: us. - -10943 days until retirement!- - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/ ___ 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] Changing rsync options for different shares.
Tomorrow, John Rouillard wrote:
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 06:41:24PM -0800, Craig Barratt wrote:
Paul writes:
So you should be able to do something like this:
$Conf{RsyncArgs} = [ @$Conf{RsyncArgs}, '--copy-links' ];
Since you're dealing with Perl, you could probably
create a file with a list of slow hosts, read that
into a hash (say, %slow_hosts, since I don't like
CamelCase)), and then you can say:
$Conf{RsyncArgs} = [ @$RConf{RsyncArgs}, '--bwlimit=128' ] if defined
$slow_hosts{$host};
Unfortunately this won't work for two reasons: when the config files
are parsed, the %Conf hash is empty (it is merged after each file is
parsed).
Yup. For those looking for the details see my prior email.
I was thinking: at the bottom of the main config.pl:
%mainConf = %Conf;
That should set a global variable that, as long as the main config.pl is
sourced (eval'ed, actually, yes?) before the per-machine config.pl, should
be available for use in the per-machine config. So the above line would
become:
$Conf{RsyncArgs} = [ @$mainConf{RsyncArgs}, '--bwlimit=128' ] if defined
$slow_hosts{$host};
Paul
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/
___
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] upgrading from 2.1.2 to 3.0.0
9:19pm, dan wrote: betas are betas. if this is a test setup, go ahead and run the beta, but if this is to hol;d critical data, use the stable. if you are moving to ubuntu 7.10, then just install ubuntu and `apt-get install backuppc` and you will be set. i will also point out to you that if you will be storing files somewhere other than the default(ubuntu) /var/lib/backuppc, maybe consider mounting that volume on /var/lib/backuppc, otherwise some of the status info in the gui is missing. Good tip, thanks. also, if you want, you can pull bpc3.0 from ubuntu backports instead of upgrading. i personally just moved a few machines to 7.10 server and im very happy. I've upgraded a few machines too, with only a couple minor problems. I enabled backports on that machine, but aptitude is still showing only the old version. Maybe I need to go back and kick it. Paul On 11/4/07, Paul Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I installed backuppc on a (K)Ubuntu 7.04 machine, not realizing that I was getting version 2.1.2. I plan on upgrading the machine to 7.10, and upgrading backuppc to 3.0.0. Two questions: 1) Is there anything particular I should worry about or watch out for after the upgrade? 2) Should I use the packaged 3.0.0, or is 3.1.0beta1 worth going to? (This is for home use--important files (to me) but not a mission critical situation or anything.) - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/ ___ 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] backuppc backing up backup directory
First, I'm new to backuppc, so this may be something I've missed in the
docs.
Setup: (K)ubuntu 7.10 on an old PIII
backup directory is on /backup filesystem (as /backup/backuppc)
changed backup directory by modifying /etc/init.d/backuppc
machine name is shebop
I'm using rsync to backup the machine itself. Here's the relevent section of
/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop/config.pl:
$Conf{RsyncShareName} = [
'/',
'/export/bedroom',
'/export/lildell',
'/data/extra',
'/data/home_videos',
'/data/images',
'/data/mp3s',
];
In my main config.pl I have:
$Conf{XferMethod} = 'rsync';
$Conf{RsyncShareName} = '/';
#and
$Conf{RsyncArgs} = [
'--numeric-ids',
'--perms',
'--owner',
'--group',
'--devices',
'--links',
'--times',
'--block-size=2048',
'--recursive',
'-D',
'--one-file-system',
];
My problem is that the system is backing up the /backup filesystem for some
reason:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop# cd new
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop/new# l
total 0
drwxr-x--- 3 backuppc backuppc 72 2007-11-03 05:27 f%2f
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop/new# cd f%2f/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop/new/f%2f# l
total 0
drwxr-x--- 3 backuppc backuppc 80 2007-11-03 05:27 fbackup
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop/new/f%2f# cd fbackup/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop/new/f%2f/fbackup# l
total 0
drwxr-x--- 6 backuppc backuppc 208 2007-11-03 05:27 fbackuppc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop/new/f%2f/fbackup# cd fbackuppc/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop/new/f%2f/fbackup/fbackuppc# l
total 8
-rw-r- 2 backuppc backuppc 955 2007-11-02 17:29 f.bash_history
drwxr-x--- 2 backuppc backuppc 48 2007-11-03 05:27 fcpool
drwxr-x--- 2 backuppc backuppc 320 2007-11-03 05:27 flog
drwxr-x--- 3 backuppc backuppc 72 2007-11-03 05:27 fpc
drwxr-x--- 2 backuppc backuppc 200 2007-11-03 05:27 f.ssh
-rw-r- 2 backuppc backuppc 3747 2007-11-02 17:29 f.viminfo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop/new/f%2f/fbackup/fbackuppc# du -sh
3.4G.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc/backuppc# ps auxww |grep rsync
backuppc 26824 0.2 1.2 6040 3240 ?S19:21 0:00 /usr/bin/ssh
-q -x -l root shebop /usr/bin/rsync --server --sender --numeric-ids --perms
--owner --group --devices --links --times --block-size=2048 --recursive -D
--one-file-system --exclude=/proc --exclude=/sys --ignore-times . /
root 26828 3.8 3.5 10648 9020 ?Ss 19:21 0:14 /usr/bin/rsync
--server --sender --numeric-ids --perms --owner --group --devices --links
--times --block-size=2048 --recursive -D --one-file-system --exclude=/proc
--exclude=/sys --ignore-times . /
You can see here that the rsync is being passed two directories: '.' and
'/'. Is that normal? I think this may be the root of my problem, but I can't
quite figure out how the . is getting there. Any suggestions?
Paul
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/
___
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 backing up backup directory
8:01am, Paul Archer wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc/backuppc# ps auxww |grep rsync backuppc 26824 0.2 1.2 6040 3240 ?S19:21 0:00 /usr/bin/ssh -q -x -l root shebop /usr/bin/rsync --server --sender --numeric-ids --perms --owner --group --devices --links --times --block-size=2048 --recursive -D --one-file-system --exclude=/proc --exclude=/sys --ignore-times . / root 26828 3.8 3.5 10648 9020 ?Ss 19:21 0:14 /usr/bin/rsync --server --sender --numeric-ids --perms --owner --group --devices --links --times --block-size=2048 --recursive -D --one-file-system --exclude=/proc --exclude=/sys --ignore-times . / You can see here that the rsync is being passed two directories: '.' and '/'. Is that normal? I think this may be the root of my problem, but I can't quite figure out how the . is getting there. Any suggestions? I should mention that I'm seeing the same behavior (as far as the . and / in the arg list) with other clients that don't have custom config.pl files, so it shouldn't be anything to do with my custom config.pl for shebop. Paul - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/ ___ 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 backing up backup directory
8:01am, Paul Archer wrote:
First, I'm new to backuppc, so this may be something I've missed in the docs.
Setup:(K)ubuntu 7.10 on an old PIII
backup directory is on /backup filesystem (as /backup/backuppc)
changed backup directory by modifying /etc/init.d/backuppc
machine name is shebop
I'm using rsync to backup the machine itself. Here's the relevent section of
/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop/config.pl:
$Conf{RsyncShareName} = [
'/',
'/export/bedroom',
'/export/lildell',
'/data/extra',
'/data/home_videos',
'/data/images',
'/data/mp3s',
];
I did a couple of more tests. First I removed
/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop/config.pl, and it backed up normally (backed up
the root filesystem, that is).
Then I changed the order of $Conf{RsyncShareName}:
$Conf{RsyncShareName} = [
'/export/bedroom',
'/',
'/export/lildell',
'/data/extra',
'/data/home_videos',
'/data/images',
'/data/mp3s',
];
The odd thing here is it seems to have completely skipped root. So far it's
backed up /export/bedroom, /export/lildell, and /data/extra.
Anyone have any idea(s) about this?
Paul
In my main config.pl I have:
$Conf{XferMethod} = 'rsync';
$Conf{RsyncShareName} = '/';
#and
$Conf{RsyncArgs} = [
'--numeric-ids',
'--perms',
'--owner',
'--group',
'--devices',
'--links',
'--times',
'--block-size=2048',
'--recursive',
'-D',
'--one-file-system',
];
My problem is that the system is backing up the /backup filesystem for some
reason:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop# cd new
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop/new# l
total 0
drwxr-x--- 3 backuppc backuppc 72 2007-11-03 05:27 f%2f
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop/new# cd f%2f/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop/new/f%2f# l
total 0
drwxr-x--- 3 backuppc backuppc 80 2007-11-03 05:27 fbackup
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop/new/f%2f# cd fbackup/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop/new/f%2f/fbackup# l
total 0
drwxr-x--- 6 backuppc backuppc 208 2007-11-03 05:27 fbackuppc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop/new/f%2f/fbackup# cd fbackuppc/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop/new/f%2f/fbackup/fbackuppc# l
total 8
-rw-r- 2 backuppc backuppc 955 2007-11-02 17:29 f.bash_history
drwxr-x--- 2 backuppc backuppc 48 2007-11-03 05:27 fcpool
drwxr-x--- 2 backuppc backuppc 320 2007-11-03 05:27 flog
drwxr-x--- 3 backuppc backuppc 72 2007-11-03 05:27 fpc
drwxr-x--- 2 backuppc backuppc 200 2007-11-03 05:27 f.ssh
-rw-r- 2 backuppc backuppc 3747 2007-11-02 17:29 f.viminfo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/backup/backuppc/pc/shebop/new/f%2f/fbackup/fbackuppc# du
-sh
3.4G.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc/backuppc# ps auxww |grep rsync
backuppc 26824 0.2 1.2 6040 3240 ?S19:21 0:00 /usr/bin/ssh
-q -x -l root shebop /usr/bin/rsync --server --sender --numeric-ids --perms
--owner --group --devices --links --times --block-size=2048 --recursive -D
--one-file-system --exclude=/proc --exclude=/sys --ignore-times . /
root 26828 3.8 3.5 10648 9020 ?Ss 19:21 0:14
/usr/bin/rsync --server --sender --numeric-ids --perms --owner --group
--devices --links --times --block-size=2048 --recursive -D --one-file-system
--exclude=/proc --exclude=/sys --ignore-times . /
You can see here that the rsync is being passed two directories: '.' and '/'.
Is that normal? I think this may be the root of my problem, but I can't quite
figure out how the . is getting there. Any suggestions?
Paul
---
If you live in a small town /You might meet a dozen or two/
Young alien types /Who step out /And dare to declare/
We're through being cool. -- Devo, Through Being Cool
---
-10945 days until retirement!-
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/
___
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] Backing up VMs
8:55pm, Bradley Alexander wrote: I have a VMware server with a number of virtual servers (as well as a VirtualBox installation on another box). Is it better to back up the virtual hosts individually or to just back up the VMware/VirtualBox installation? From a space perspective, if anything changes in the virtual machine, does the entire VM get backed up, as opposed to the individual file getting backed up again, thereby making the backups in general smaller? In general, you're better off backing up the virtual machines as if they were real machines. That way you'll be able to do incrementals. If you backup the files that represent the virtual disks, you'll have to get the entire file all over again for even minor changes. You may want to look around for a specialized backup solution that understands VMs, something that can do a binary diff on the disk image files. Keep in mind that if you do that, you won't really be able to restore by individual files. (That's another advantage of backing up the machines individually (from within the OS.)) Paul - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/ ___ 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/
