dan wrote:
> sure would be nice to have native ZFS on linux. :( for this reason
> i'm considering nexenta and backuppc, as well as a faster network stack in
> the solaris kernel or freebsd 'cause freebsd rocks!
Your timing is right - freebsd 7.0 was just released.
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL
RAM RAM RAM! 512MB of ram is definitely your issue here. swapping causes
more periods of head movement which means less periods of head reads/writes
on your disk. With your specs, moving to 1GB+ of ram will be huge.
that Celeron processor is probably your next big issue specifically because
it
just a comment, It sure would be nice if LVM supported a raid5 or raidz
style raid within the volume manager so we didn't have to put LVM on top of
md*. sure would be nice to have native ZFS on linux. :( for this reason
i'm considering nexenta and backuppc, as well as a faster network stack in
th
the $TopDIR must be on the same volume as the backup files. so if $TopDIR
is /var/lib/backuppc and /var is a 500GB drive then your pc directory needs
to be somewhere in /var. What I do and what is common to do is to mount up
the target drive somewhere temporarily and `cp -Rp /var/lib/backuppc
/ta
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, John Pettitt wrote:
> So my take - if your box is swapping that's the #1 upgrade because that
> will kill any server performance and memory is cheap. Next I'd look at
> disk, with the right controller more spindles will give you a
> performance boost however raid 5 is not a
Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> We're running a BackupPC 3.1.0 installation on CentOS 4 32-bit on a
> machine with the following specs:
>
> - Intel Celeron CPU 2.66 GHz
> - 512 MB RAM
> - BackupPC pool on a single 250 GB ATA 133 drive
>
> We currently running one backup at a time
Kimball Larsen wrote:
> Ok, I finally found and tracked down my problem.
>
> I'm using BackupPC on Ubuntu 7.10, which installs BackupPC 3.0.0.
> Turns out, changing the TopDir location does NOT change the location
> of the pool files - they are hardcoded to live in /var/lib/backuppc.
>
> Acco
Ok, I finally found and tracked down my problem.
I'm using BackupPC on Ubuntu 7.10, which installs BackupPC 3.0.0.
Turns out, changing the TopDir location does NOT change the location
of the pool files - they are hardcoded to live in /var/lib/backuppc.
According to here:
http://backuppc.wi
Kimball Larsen wrote:
> Ok, I found the problem. Looks like my cpool is in the wrong place,
> apparently:
>
> ln: creating hard link `/var/lib/backuppc/cpool/b/7/6/
> b763efe12301fe7645e82fb46d53b4e3' to `/mnt/plump/backuppc/pc/
> 192.168.0.8/10/attrib': Invalid cross-device link
>
> It look
Ok, I freely admit that I'm in over my head here... I am NOT a perl
programmer. However, here is the method that is puking when trying to
create the links:
sub MakeFileLink
{
my($bpc, $name, $d, $newFile, $compress) = @_;
my($i, $rawFile);
return -1 if ( !-f $name );
for ( $
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:54 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stripe size is 64k.
> Also, the system was made with just "mkfs.ext3 -j /dev/sdX", so without
> the stride option (or other useful options, like online resizing, which
> is enabled by default only in the recent rel
Ok, I found the problem. Looks like my cpool is in the wrong place,
apparently:
ln: creating hard link `/var/lib/backuppc/cpool/b/7/6/
b763efe12301fe7645e82fb46d53b4e3' to `/mnt/plump/backuppc/pc/
192.168.0.8/10/attrib': Invalid cross-device link
It looks like my cpool is in /var/lib/backupp
Kimball Larsen wrote:
>
>>> Pool is used if you don't have compression enabled, cpool if you do.
>>> Whichever is used must be on the same filesystem as the pc directory
>>> tree so that hardlinks work between them. If you are getting errors
>>> making the links, check that you have space (df)
On Feb 27, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Kimball Larsen wrote:
On Feb 27, 2008, at 1:33 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Kimball Larsen wrote:
Actually, I may have answered my own question somewhat:
It appears (based on my reading of a message here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.ne
On Feb 27, 2008, at 1:33 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Kimball Larsen wrote:
Actually, I may have answered my own question somewhat:
It appears (based on my reading of a message here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net/msg09017.html
) that my pool is hosed.
Specifically,
Kimball Larsen wrote:
> Actually, I may have answered my own question somewhat:
>
> It appears (based on my reading of a message here:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net/msg09017.html
> ) that my pool is hosed.
>
> Specifically, my cpool directory has several gigs
Actually, I may have answered my own question somewhat:
It appears (based on my reading of a message here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net/msg09017.html
) that my pool is hosed.
Specifically, my cpool directory has several gigs of data in it, but
my "pool" direc
On Feb 27, 2008, at 1:11 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Kimball Larsen wrote:
I notice that the cpool directory is owned by root. Should it
be owned by the backuppc user instead?
>>> Yes, it must be writable by the backuppc user. Your logs are
>>> probably full of "unable to link" e
Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
> I'm backing up a bunch of machine using BackupPC 3.1.0. Everything has
> been working fine for a long time, but since a couple of days backups
> for one machine have been failing. The XferLOG for the last partial
> backup has this error message:
>
> Unable
Kimball Larsen schrieb:
> On Feb 27, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Kimball Larsen wrote:
>>> I've recently had to move my backuppc filesystem from one machine
>>> to another. My machines are all backing up just fine, I'm able to
>>> see all my old backups and restore files from t
Kimball Larsen wrote:
>
>>> I notice that the cpool directory is owned by root. Should it be
>>> owned by the backuppc user instead?
>> Yes, it must be writable by the backuppc user. Your logs are
>> probably full of "unable to link" errors.
>>
>
> Yeah, I've been getting stuff like this:
On Feb 27, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Kimball Larsen wrote:
>> I've recently had to move my backuppc filesystem from one machine
>> to another. My machines are all backing up just fine, I'm able to
>> see all my old backups and restore files from them with no
>> problem.. h
Ski Kacoroski wrote:
> iowait means disk wait problems. Either move to a 3ware raid card or
> to a scsi drive to improve matters.
It generally means you are waiting for head motion. The controller isn't
going to matter and faster drives only make a little bit of difference.
--
Les Mikesel
Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> We're running a BackupPC 3.1.0 installation on CentOS 4 32-bit on a
> machine with the following specs:
>
> - Intel Celeron CPU 2.66 GHz
> - 512 MB RAM
> - BackupPC pool on a single 250 GB ATA 133 drive
>
> We currently running one backup at a t
On 02/27 07:47 , Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
> We currently running one backup at a time ($Conf{MaxBackups} = 1;).
> This already maxes out the iowait%. The machine is also swapping
> sometimes. If we'd want to do more backups simultaneously, how would
> you prioritize the following possi
iowait means disk wait problems. Either move to a 3ware raid card or
to a scsi drive to improve matters.
cheers,
ski
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:47:45 +0100 "Nils Breunese (Lemonbit)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> We're running a BackupPC 3.1.0 installation on CentOS 4 32-bit on a
Hello all,
We're running a BackupPC 3.1.0 installation on CentOS 4 32-bit on a
machine with the following specs:
- Intel Celeron CPU 2.66 GHz
- 512 MB RAM
- BackupPC pool on a single 250 GB ATA 133 drive
We currently running one backup at a time ($Conf{MaxBackups} = 1;).
This already maxes o
Kimball Larsen wrote:
> I've recently had to move my backuppc filesystem from one machine to
> another. My machines are all backing up just fine, I'm able to see
> all my old backups and restore files from them with no problem..
> however, my pool size is reporting as 0MB. I checked the fil
I've recently had to move my backuppc filesystem from one machine to
another. My machines are all backing up just fine, I'm able to see
all my old backups and restore files from them with no problem..
however, my pool size is reporting as 0MB. I checked the filesystem,
and the size of the
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:15 AM, John Rouillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:51:12AM -0600, Brad Triem wrote:
> > I'd like to bring this topic back into discussion. I'm trying to keep a
> > single daily full. To also save on bandwidth, I run a full, and then I
> > run
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:51:12AM -0600, Brad Triem wrote:
> I'd like to bring this topic back into discussion. I'm trying to keep a
> single daily full. To also save on bandwidth, I run a full, and then I
> run a daily incremental. I'd like to just merge each days incremental
> into the full.
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>>> I indeed use iSCSI.
>>> The storage is on the SAN, and it's accessible via iSCSI.
>>> BackupPC itself runs as a Xen guest.
>> Is there some point to splitting the box where backuppc runs and its
>> storage? I'd expect it to be faster/cheaper to shove some big SATA
Hello,
I'm backing up a bunch of machine using BackupPC 3.1.0. Everything has
been working fine for a long time, but since a couple of days backups
for one machine have been failing. The XferLOG for the last partial
backup has this error message:
Unable to open /mnt/backup/backuppc
David Rees schrieb:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:39 PM, David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So there you go. IMO, unless you are willing to overhaul your storage
>> system or slightly increase the risk of data corruption (IMO,
>> data=writeback instead of the default data=ordered should be a
David Rees schrieb:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Can you give us more details on your disk array? Controller, disks,
>> > RAID layout, ext3 fs creation options, etc...
>>
>> I said some of that already - but here are some missing parts.
>>
Adam Goryachev schrieb:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> | Les Mikesell schrieb:
> |> Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> |>> Although - with IO::Dirent "wa" is now 100% almost all the time, and
> |>> the system feels much slower. Hm. Let's hope it's coinc
Les Mikesell schrieb:
> Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>>
>> I indeed use iSCSI.
>> The storage is on the SAN, and it's accessible via iSCSI.
>> BackupPC itself runs as a Xen guest.
>
> Is there some point to splitting the box where backuppc runs and its
> storage? I'd expect it to be faster/cheaper
37 matches
Mail list logo
