Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Aaron Mason wrote: > Not in Australia, and not Seagate, the only brand I will trust these > days. A 2TB Green drive is AU$135, a 1TB non-green is $155. Oh, and > the drives were bought second hand off a guy who (stupidly as he > admits) bought them for a hardware RAID setup and had to take them out > because the raid kept falling over as the drives went into sleep mode. > Not a problem with software RAID/ZFS. Seagate is one brand I will not buy nowadays. After their 1.5/2TB fiasco, and more recently with one specific line of drives, so bad that they got a huge number of 1 or 2 stars at newegg. When 3TB drives were in the $300 range, after the flood, that one specific model was still at $150 or so - word was they were just trying to push the inventory out and screw the customers over. It's almost as if the Maxtor side took over. -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. "Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30v_g83VHK4
Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:39 PM, bofh wrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Aaron Mason > wrote: >>> I would avoid "green" drives like the plague. Check out the SMART >>> status on them and look at the drive park statistic among others. >>> Look at how high the number is, versus what the life time recommended >>> number... >> >> I would too if it were an enterprise setup. This is but a home setup >> built on a limited budget. > > Non-green drives are at the same price of green ones. Maybe not by > the same manufacturer, but I'm partial to Hitachis. Cheap and fast > and good (so they got bought out by WDC, and it'll be crappy soon). > Not in Australia, and not Seagate, the only brand I will trust these days. A 2TB Green drive is AU$135, a 1TB non-green is $155. Oh, and the drives were bought second hand off a guy who (stupidly as he admits) bought them for a hardware RAID setup and had to take them out because the raid kept falling over as the drives went into sleep mode. Not a problem with software RAID/ZFS. -- Aaron Mason - Programmer, open source addict I've taken my software vows - for beta or for worse
Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Aaron Mason wrote: >> I would avoid "green" drives like the plague. Check out the SMART >> status on them and look at the drive park statistic among others. >> Look at how high the number is, versus what the life time recommended >> number... > > I would too if it were an enterprise setup. This is but a home setup > built on a limited budget. Non-green drives are at the same price of green ones. Maybe not by the same manufacturer, but I'm partial to Hitachis. Cheap and fast and good (so they got bought out by WDC, and it'll be crappy soon). -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. "Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30v_g83VHK4
Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:17 PM, bofh wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Aaron Mason > wrote: >> But as Mr. Anon says, choose your hardware carefully. Getting it >> wrong can be disastrous. My EON-based file server is a Core2Duo 6400 >> w/ 4GB RAM on a Gigabyte G41MT-ES2L and 4 2TB WD Green drives which >> collectively pull 177MB/sec, though the onboard Realtek NIC maxes out >> at 88MB/sec it still beats the shtick out of the 12MB/sec I was >> getting before. > > I would avoid "green" drives like the plague. Check out the SMART > status on them and look at the drive park statistic among others. > Look at how high the number is, versus what the life time recommended > number... > I would too if it were an enterprise setup. This is but a home setup built on a limited budget. > > -- > http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk > "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." > -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. > "Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or > internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks > factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford > learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30v_g83VHK4 > -- Aaron Mason - Programmer, open source addict I've taken my software vows - for beta or for worse
Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Aaron Mason wrote: > But as Mr. Anon says, choose your hardware carefully. Getting it > wrong can be disastrous. My EON-based file server is a Core2Duo 6400 > w/ 4GB RAM on a Gigabyte G41MT-ES2L and 4 2TB WD Green drives which > collectively pull 177MB/sec, though the onboard Realtek NIC maxes out > at 88MB/sec it still beats the shtick out of the 12MB/sec I was > getting before. I would avoid "green" drives like the plague. Check out the SMART status on them and look at the drive park statistic among others. Look at how high the number is, versus what the life time recommended number... -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. "Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30v_g83VHK4
OT: ZFS (Was: Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera)
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote: >> Anonymous wrote: >> > Solaris >> > ZFS >> >> I've heard of it (ZFS) but here's the thing, I struggle enough keeping >> up with Wndows and OpenBSD I don't want to put another system into the >> mix. > > Understood. Unfortunately or fortunately however you look at it OpenBSD > doesn't have ZFS. But FreeBSD does. That could be another option with less > of a learning curve than Solaris which admittedly is steep. Another thing to > consider is a prebuilt NAS appliance based on FreeBSD or OpenSolaris. There > are numerous ones out check distrowatch.com OT but since I like ZFS, check out illumos. It is the "base" that all post-opensolaris distros are using (nexenta, etc). Nexenta 4 will be all illumos based, renamed as Illumian, debian apt-get style distro. illumian is apt-get with debian userland, and opensolaris kernel. Nexenta has an interesting "community edition" which is free up to 18TB. And if you like people bitching at oracle, start at the 33:00 part. The whole thing is an interesting history about solaris and even a little about sunos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. "Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30v_g83VHK4
Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Anonymous wrote: > PLEASE check the Solaris HCL and possible zfs-disc...@opensolaris.org before > building a file server. If you pick the wrong components, ZFS will hurt you > badly. If you pick the right components you will be so happy. > This I know well - I was left with a file server that maxed out at 12MB/sec. Oh, and a dead hard drive which Seagate were more than happy to replace. There is a prebuilt appliance by the name of EON - it was based on OpenSolaris before Oracle killed it, now it's based on OpenIndiana/Illumos. There is a very good starting guide to get you on your way, with CIFS shares and the like. Instructions are quite similar to do NFS exports, even iSCSI if you're that way inclined. But as Mr. Anon says, choose your hardware carefully. Getting it wrong can be disastrous. My EON-based file server is a Core2Duo 6400 w/ 4GB RAM on a Gigabyte G41MT-ES2L and 4 2TB WD Green drives which collectively pull 177MB/sec, though the onboard Realtek NIC maxes out at 88MB/sec it still beats the shtick out of the 12MB/sec I was getting before.
Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera
Damn auto-correct Regards, Dain Bentley -Original Message- From: Josh Grosse [j...@jggimi.homeip.net] Received: Tuesday, 07 Feb 2012, 10:22am To: Bentley, Dain [dbent...@nas.edu] Subject: Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera "Bentley, Dain" wrote: >and you can be very glandular with you config. You have to hate auto correction software. :) -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse any idiotic automated word choices. It wasn't me. Honest.
Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera
I second Bacula. It runs on pretty much any OS and has tons of options and is very configurable. You could run it on an OpenBSD server and back up you windows and OpenBSD clients. If you have enough disk space back up your clients to disk and migrate to tape for offsite. The windows client is also stable and you can be very glandular with you config. Regards, Dain Bentley -Original Message- From: Anonymous Remailer (austria) [mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at] Received: Tuesday, 07 Feb 2012, 4:01am To: misc@openbsd.org [misc@openbsd.org] Subject: Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera > Anonymous wrote: > > Solaris > > ZFS > > I've heard of it (ZFS) but here's the thing, I struggle enough keeping > up with Wndows and OpenBSD I don't want to put another system into the > mix. Understood. Unfortunately or fortunately however you look at it OpenBSD doesn't have ZFS. But FreeBSD does. That could be another option with less of a learning curve than Solaris which admittedly is steep. Another thing to consider is a prebuilt NAS appliance based on FreeBSD or OpenSolaris. There are numerous ones out check distrowatch.com What ZFS does for you aside from offering pretty high quality software RAID and other redundancy/protection from data loss is give you really nice management features like being able to do quotas and resize filesystems and compress (and with Solaris 11 even encrypt them) all from one central management interface instead of external or add-on tools. It's one stop shopping. It also makes NFS and SAMBA less painful since you don't have to play around with the normal share tables and portmapper stuff (not THAT big of a deal but not zero) you can just turn features on or off at the ZFS filesystem level. It's really ideal for a backup or NAS appliance. Again you must have known good hardware from the disks to the backplane to the RAM or ZFS will ruin your week or even your whole month. When it works, it works. When it doesn't, oh shit. > > You > > could probably script Filezilla to SSH what you want to the file server. > > Good idea. > I'll probably end up either installing the Microsoft NFS client and > scripting that or use the bog standard ftp client and script that. The problem is the M/S NFS client only works on certain versions of Windows and not others. Even on the versions it is supposed to work on it doesn't always work. I have an XP Pro box that SFU refuses to install on.
Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera
> Anonymous wrote: > > Solaris > > ZFS > > I've heard of it (ZFS) but here's the thing, I struggle enough keeping > up with Wndows and OpenBSD I don't want to put another system into the > mix. Understood. Unfortunately or fortunately however you look at it OpenBSD doesn't have ZFS. But FreeBSD does. That could be another option with less of a learning curve than Solaris which admittedly is steep. Another thing to consider is a prebuilt NAS appliance based on FreeBSD or OpenSolaris. There are numerous ones out check distrowatch.com What ZFS does for you aside from offering pretty high quality software RAID and other redundancy/protection from data loss is give you really nice management features like being able to do quotas and resize filesystems and compress (and with Solaris 11 even encrypt them) all from one central management interface instead of external or add-on tools. It's one stop shopping. It also makes NFS and SAMBA less painful since you don't have to play around with the normal share tables and portmapper stuff (not THAT big of a deal but not zero) you can just turn features on or off at the ZFS filesystem level. It's really ideal for a backup or NAS appliance. Again you must have known good hardware from the disks to the backplane to the RAM or ZFS will ruin your week or even your whole month. When it works, it works. When it doesn't, oh shit. > > You > > could probably script Filezilla to SSH what you want to the file server. > > Good idea. > I'll probably end up either installing the Microsoft NFS client and > scripting that or use the bog standard ftp client and script that. The problem is the M/S NFS client only works on certain versions of Windows and not others. Even on the versions it is supposed to work on it doesn't always work. I have an XP Pro box that SFU refuses to install on.
Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera
> I'll try scripting NFS maybe in combination with dump on the OpenBSD > machines and see how that goes. > > Best wishes. > Seriously, look at Bacula. It'll do a better job and be less headache. [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:21 AM, David Coppa wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> >>> The one you want is "CIFS", where the BSD system can mount authorized >>> shares from the Windows boxes using the Samba software. >> >> OpenBSD does NOT have cifs support > > Then what do you call Sharity? It's userland implementation. >http://openports.se/net/sharity-light > > It might not be a built-in, but it works quite well according to the > various Google reports. Do not trust google: sharity-light is a crap
Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera
On 07/02/2012, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:10 AM, David Walker > wrote: >> >> Currently my backup regime is woeful. >> I have years worth of work on a Windows machine and some stuff >> scattered across OpenBSD machines. > > Uh-oh. I know. I do have "hard" copies of some stuff (drives on shelves, etcetera) but I need to "cloud" it a little more and in the process get more methodical (instead of me forgetting). Fortunately I have no problem losing any of these machines and starting from scratch - I don't need drive images or anything, the data I care about is in a few specific areas. For instance the web server, I mainly care about the web sites of which I have multiple copies. I also have a copy of the Apache *conf and I probably have a copy of the /etc changes (rc.conf.local, pf.conf, so on). In a worst case I can re-install from scratch, adjust /etc and copy Apache *conf (or re-write them in half an hour) - all that's not practically rebuildable is the websites themselves. Anonymous wrote: > Solaris > ZFS I've heard of it (ZFS) but here's the thing, I struggle enough keeping up with Wndows and OpenBSD I don't want to put another system into the mix. > Being able to push data to the server manually from Windows and other > operating systems over the network. SSH or IPsec or similar is my idea > here. > Windows is a weakspot since it is so bad and has few standard tools. Especially open protocols and secure. You either accept and embrace Active Directory or install third party software or stay simple. Fortunately the Windows machine is internal so insecure is okay. > You > could probably script Filezilla to SSH what you want to the file server. Good idea. I'll probably end up either installing the Microsoft NFS client and scripting that or use the bog standard ftp client and script that. > You can script cron jobs to rsync from everywhere but on Windows. > NFS is better for sharing in real time. For backups rsync is hard to beat > but Windows is a weak point as mentioned by other posters. I'm looking at that now. Part of the reason I want to use base is so that the curve in getting a machine back up is easy. It's kind of what I was looking for but the overhead probably isn't worth it in my situation. Again thanks for all the replies (including off-list). Again I only want to backup data (which is really limited to the Windows machine) and configuration information (which is easily quantifiable and changes infrequently) - simple is probably best. The scenario is so simple that installing software is possibly creating more difficulty. I'll try scripting NFS maybe in combination with dump on the OpenBSD machines and see how that goes. Best wishes.
Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:21 AM, David Coppa wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > >> The one you want is "CIFS", where the BSD system can mount authorized >> shares from the Windows boxes using the Samba software. > > OpenBSD does NOT have cifs support Then what do you call Sharity? http://openports.se/net/sharity-light It might not be a built-in, but it works quite well according to the various Google reports.
Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera
On 2012-02-06, James Shupe wrote: > On 02/06/2012 03:10 AM, David Walker wrote: >> Hey. >> >> Currently my backup regime is woeful. >> I have years worth of work on a Windows machine and some stuff >> scattered across OpenBSD machines. >> > > You might want to look at Bacula. Yes, Bacula works well for Windows, it has a proper client which runs as a Windows server and can do VSS. Initial config of Bacula is not very fun, but once that's done you don't have to touch it too much. webacula is also in ports which is a nice web UI, especially good for status displays. There is also backuppc which can do backups using samba as a client, some people might prefer this, personally I don't.
Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera
> Hey. Yo. > Currently my backup regime is woeful. > I have years worth of work on a Windows machine ^^^ > and some stuff > scattered across OpenBSD machines. > > I'm thinking of building a machine (the file server) to provide some > backup and central storage. Solaris ZFS > Being able to push data to the server manually from Windows and other > operating systems over the network. SSH or IPsec or similar is my idea > here. Windows is a weakspot since it is so bad and has few standard tools. You could probably script Filezilla to SSH what you want to the file server. Everybody else can simply mount NFS shares, dead easy with ZFS. Or you could rsync from non-Windows systems to Solaris. > > Having some mechanism where I can pull onto the server from the > clients at selected times or poll the machines for changes and update > the server or something. You can script cron jobs to rsync from everywhere but on Windows. > I have no experience here and I'm thinking about acronyms like NFS, > rsync, etcetera. NFS is better for sharing in real time. For backups rsync is hard to beat but Windows is a weak point as mentioned by other posters. > > This is for a small number of machines and low rate data changes but > if I can find something that's in base, scalable, robust, secure, > simple, quick ... Solaris ZFS > Please give me some recommended acronyms, man pages, etcetera. PLEASE check the Solaris HCL and possible zfs-disc...@opensolaris.org before building a file server. If you pick the wrong components, ZFS will hurt you badly. If you pick the right components you will be so happy.
Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera
Thanks for the replies. I should have stated I'm after something I can understand at a block level. There are only a few datapoints I care about: * the /etc from a few internal and external OpenBSD machines. * a few other *conf* areas like /var/named and so on from external machines. * either /var/www/virtuals from an external machine or from the Windows machine they were built on. * some personal data from the Windows machine. All that stuff changes little (especially the OpenBSD machines). If I lose a day or so from the Windows machine that's fine. So simple is good. I've read through the ideas and something like dump looks suitable. dump - filesystem backup -f file Write the backup to file; file may be ... ... an ordinary file ... This suggests I can mount a remote partition via NFS and dump to a file there. Is this correct? Can I do this via SSH also? The only other question mark is doing something similar for the internal Windows machine. I could do this manually via ftp but I suspect that will result in it happening far too little. As far as I understand it, Microsoft supply an NFS client via the resource kit and it looks easy to "at" and script as long as it's interoperable and Microsoft read the RFCs ... Best wishes.
Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera
On 02/06/2012 03:10 AM, David Walker wrote: > Hey. > > Currently my backup regime is woeful. > I have years worth of work on a Windows machine and some stuff > scattered across OpenBSD machines. > You might want to look at Bacula. [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > The one you want is "CIFS", where the BSD system can mount authorized > shares from the Windows boxes using the Samba software. OpenBSD does NOT have cifs support
Re: Backup Redundancy Etcetera
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:10 AM, David Walker wrote: > Hey. > > Currently my backup regime is woeful. > I have years worth of work on a Windows machine and some stuff > scattered across OpenBSD machines. Uh-oh. > I'm thinking of building a machine (the file server) to provide some > backup and central storage. > I'll probably try and get my head around softraid for redundancy > redundancy on the file server and I'm looking at these ideas for data > transfer ... > > Being able to push data to the server manually from Windows and other > operating systems over the network. SSH or IPsec or similar is my idea > here. Pull through CIFS mounting, don't try to pull over SSH. (See the old thread at http://fixunix.com/ssh/73787-mcafee-cygwin-ssh.html .) Also, running rsync on a Windows box is. fragile, due to the way Windows locks processes when they try to "open" a file that is "busy". It makes rsync very fragile because the set of such files is almost impossible to pre-identify and exclude, and some of them are really important, such as Outlook backups. That said, there's a very useful toolkit called "rsnapshot" that I've been using for years which is very flexible and can easily be targeted at CIFS shares. I've been using it on numerous UNIX and Linux systems, including OpenBSD, quite effectively. > Having some mechanism where I can pull onto the server from the > clients at selected times or poll the machines for changes and update > the server or something. > I have no experience here and I'm thinking about acronyms like NFS, > rsync, etcetera. The one you want is "CIFS", where the BSD system can mount authorized shares from the Windows boxes using the Samba software. > This is for a small number of machines and low rate data changes but > if I can find something that's in base, scalable, robust, secure, > simple, quick ... > :] > > Please give me some recommended acronyms, man pages, etcetera. > > Best wishes.
Backup Redundancy Etcetera
Hey. Currently my backup regime is woeful. I have years worth of work on a Windows machine and some stuff scattered across OpenBSD machines. I'm thinking of building a machine (the file server) to provide some backup and central storage. I'll probably try and get my head around softraid for redundancy redundancy on the file server and I'm looking at these ideas for data transfer ... Being able to push data to the server manually from Windows and other operating systems over the network. SSH or IPsec or similar is my idea here. Having some mechanism where I can pull onto the server from the clients at selected times or poll the machines for changes and update the server or something. I have no experience here and I'm thinking about acronyms like NFS, rsync, etcetera. This is for a small number of machines and low rate data changes but if I can find something that's in base, scalable, robust, secure, simple, quick ... :] Please give me some recommended acronyms, man pages, etcetera. Best wishes.
