Christian Völker wrote:
> Waking up this thread :)
>
> Ok, we discovered (and meanwhile I saw it on my systems) when doing
> backuo with rsync the first full backup will take several days until
> finished.
>
> Once this is done, every following backup consumes much less bandwith,
> so it succe
I might add that if a backup is taking 24 hours, when is the server actually
doing any work? during the backup? what happens when files change before
the backup is complete? is your backup truly a snapshot of the system?
maybe consider using LVM or something and using a pre-backup command to ta
Waking up this thread :)
Ok, we discovered (and meanwhile I saw it on my systems) when doing
backuo with rsync the first full backup will take several days until
finished.
Once this is done, every following backup consumes much less bandwith,
so it succeeds within 24hours.
But what happens to
Christian Völker wrote:
> Waking up this thread :)
>
> Ok, we discovered (and meanwhile I saw it on my systems) when doing
> backuo with rsync the first full backup will take several days until
> finished.
>
> Once this is done, every following backup consumes much less bandwith,
> so it succe
not to hijack the thread here but this is not just a valid point, but a very
inteligent point. Picking a specific stable distro and package list allows
a person to maintain all identical setups, document the system and the
configuration, and redeploy identical systems. I run ubuntu 7.04 with
back
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rob Owens wrote:
> Adam Goryachev wrote:
>> Rob Owens wrote:
>>> Adam Goryachev wrote:
Holger Parplies wrote:
> a) rsync full backups are only minimally more expensive than incrementals
> in
>terms of bandwidth. Still, every file
On 09/05 12:51 , Adam Goryachev wrote:
> Also assuming you use backuppc 3.0 or newer, which means it is not
> available for me as I am using debian stable packages. (Although, I hear
> the next debian stable should be out pretty soon, in which case I'll get
> the newer version then :)
Check out ww
Adam Goryachev wrote:
> Rob Owens wrote:
>> Adam Goryachev wrote:
>>> Holger Parplies wrote:
a) rsync full backups are only minimally more expensive than incrementals
in
terms of bandwidth. Still, every file needs to be completely read from
disk
on both sides, so th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rob Owens wrote:
> Adam Goryachev wrote:
>> Holger Parplies wrote:
>>> a) rsync full backups are only minimally more expensive than incrementals in
>>>terms of bandwidth. Still, every file needs to be completely read from
>>> disk
>>>on both s
Adam Goryachev wrote:
> Holger Parplies wrote:
>> a) rsync full backups are only minimally more expensive than incrementals in
>>terms of bandwidth. Still, every file needs to be completely read from
>> disk
>>on both sides, so there is a good reason to offer an "incremental" mode as
>>
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 12:23:56AM +0200, Holger Parplies wrote:
> I keep repeating this, so you might all be bored, but still:
[...]
> When you factor pooling into the equasion, this means that the difference
> between rsync full and incremental backups is smaller than for tar/smb
> backups, wh
Hi,
Adam Goryachev wrote on 2008-09-04 08:55:51 +1000 [Re: [BackupPC-users] Backup
through slow line?]:
> [...]
> BTW, 2 x rsync incrementals of the same level will transfer more data
> than one full + one incremental. So for example, doing 6 incrementals
> followed by a full backup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Holger Parplies wrote:
> a) rsync full backups are only minimally more expensive than incrementals in
>terms of bandwidth. Still, every file needs to be completely read from disk
>on both sides, so there is a good reason to offer an "incrementa
Hi,
dan wrote on 2008-09-03 14:17:00 -0600 [Re: [BackupPC-users] Backup through
slow line?]:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Rob Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> > Christian Völker wrote:
> > > [...] again the question what is then the difference between a ful
full or incremental really discribes how they are stored on backuppc. a
full will hang around longer than an incremental. As far as the actual
transfer, the only real difference is that a 'full' doesnt skipp files that
have the same mtime where an incremental skips those files. This causes a
ful
Christian Völker wrote:
> |> Assume, the full backup is finished after two weeks- will the next full
> |> backup take the same amount of time?
> | If you are using rsync it will be much faster next time, sending only
> | the changes.
> If so, again the question what is then the difference between a
>> Christian Völker wrote:
>>> Now I want to backup these servers. Obviously it takes more than 24
>>> hours to perform a full backup, so the running backup fails after 24hours.
>>>
>>> BackupPC now schedules the next full backupwhich runs for 24h and
>>> fails...and so on.
>
Try setting Clien
dan wrote:
> consider
> 1) do you need to backup all of the files on that system? are there
> some large files or mp3 or video files that can be skipped?
> consider narrowing the scope of the backup to just appropriate files.
> 2) consider compressing the data. With such a small pipe you wi
wow. id have to say that your cant trust that backup! partial backups
every night? no consistent time which there would actually be a full
backup? *maybe* every now and then? This is as good as not having a
backup.
consider
1) do you need to backup all of the files on that system? are there
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Christian Völker wrote:
>> Now I want to backup these servers. Obviously it takes more than 24
>> hours to perform a full backup, so the running backup fails after 24hours.
>>
>> BackupPC now schedules the next full backupwhic
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Christian Völker wrote:
>
>> |> If the full backup fails, does it start from scratch every time or are
>> |> some files already stored in the backup and used during the next try, so
>> |> it'll finish some day?
>> | If you are using rsync as the transfer method it will cont
Christian Völker wrote:
>
> |> If the full backup fails, does it start from scratch every time or are
> |> some files already stored in the backup and used during the next try, so
> |> it'll finish some day?
> | If you are using rsync as the transfer method it will continue
> | approximately where
Christian Völker wrote:
> |> Assume, the full backup is finished after two weeks- will the
> next full
> |> backup take the same amount of time?
> | If you are using rsync it will be much faster next time, sending
> only
> | the changes.
> If so, again the question what is then the difference
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
| If you are using openvpn you can give the end point its own ip address
| with routes through the local side and use that as the target address
| for the backup.
Yes I know. That's not the issue. OpenVPN works perfectly with net2net
and routes...
|>
Christian Völker wrote:
>
> Now I have some remote servers which can be reached through a VPN.
> Unfortunately the connection speed is very slow (128Kb/s), because it's
> only needed for named, ssh and mail. Additionally it's a line without a
> fixed IP, instead the line is disconnected every 24 h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yohoo!
BackupPC is running fine here and backing up my local servers.
Now I have some remote servers which can be reached through a VPN.
Unfortunately the connection speed is very slow (128Kb/s), because it's
only needed for named, ssh and mail. Addi
26 matches
Mail list logo
