On Mar 10, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> Michael Conner wrote at about 14:46:21 -0600 on Thursday, March 10, 2011:
>> That is good to know. Actually things are a little better than I thought,
>> the spare machine is Dell Dimension 2400 with a Pentium 4, max 2 gb memory.
>> So I
Timothy Murphy wrote at about 15:24:07 + on Sunday, March 13, 2011:
> Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
>
> > I don't think that explains why you are seeing lightning fast speeds
> > while all of the rest of us are unable to get anything but very small
> > BackupPC archives to rsync in a reasona
Les Mikesell wrote at about 11:48:36 -0500 on Sunday, March 13, 2011:
> On 3/11/11 11:27 AM, Cesar Kawar wrote:
> >
> > I know that is "only" to process 800,000 files, but with version 3.0.0 and
> > later, it doesn't load all the files at once. With a 512 Mb computer
> > you'll be fine, but
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:16 AM, César Kawar wrote:
> Yes I'm sure. Without -H option it actually was impossible to sync the pools.
> It worked without -H but didn't fit on the target USB drive.
Just to toss this out there as a possible explanation - if I've got
this wrong someone please jump i
2011/3/13 Les Mikesell
> On 3/11/11 11:27 AM, Cesar Kawar wrote:
> >
> > I know that is "only" to process 800,000 files, but with version 3.0.0
> and later, it doesn't load all the files at once. With a 512 Mb computer
> you'll be fine, but in the particular installation I was talking before, 1
>
On 3/11/11 11:27 AM, Cesar Kawar wrote:
>
> I know that is "only" to process 800,000 files, but with version 3.0.0 and
> later, it doesn't load all the files at once. With a 512 Mb computer you'll
> be fine, but in the particular installation I was talking before, 1 Tb of
> data comprised of 1 y
Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> I don't think that explains why you are seeing lightning fast speeds
> while all of the rest of us are unable to get anything but very small
> BackupPC archives to rsync in a reasonable amount of time if at all.
Could you define what you mean by "very small archives"
Cesar Kawar wrote at about 07:33:52 +0100 on Sunday, March 13, 2011:
>
>
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>
> El 13/03/2011, a las 02:10, "Jeffrey J. Kosowsky"
> escribió:
>
> > Cesar Kawar wrote at about 23:07:53 +0100 on Friday, March 11, 2011:
> >>
> >> El 11/03/2011, a las 21:13, Jeff
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El 13/03/2011, a las 02:10, "Jeffrey J. Kosowsky"
escribió:
> Cesar Kawar wrote at about 23:07:53 +0100 on Friday, March 11, 2011:
>>
>> El 11/03/2011, a las 21:13, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky escribió:
>>
>>> Cesar Kawar wrote at about 18:27:34 +0100 on Friday, March 11, 20
Cesar Kawar wrote at about 23:07:53 +0100 on Friday, March 11, 2011:
>
> El 11/03/2011, a las 21:13, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky escribió:
>
> > Cesar Kawar wrote at about 18:27:34 +0100 on Friday, March 11, 2011:
> >>
> >> El 11/03/2011, a las 14:59, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky escribió:
> >>
> >>> Ce
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky
wrote:
> In particular with regard to metrics you seek, I don't know whether it is
> better/worse to have one file with 2N links or N files with 2 links. Your
> metrics don't distinguish that and depending on how the list of hard links is
> c
On 3/11/2011 4:07 PM, Cesar Kawar wrote:
>
>
> BackupPC was running on a 4 Cores Xeon Dell PowerEdge 2900 II, with 2 500Gb
> SATA hard drive on software RAID-1 and 4 Gb of RAM.
>
> And when replicating the pools, the CPU was almost 100% used.
I think most of the ways that measure CPU on linux inc
El 11/03/2011, a las 21:13, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky escribió:
> Cesar Kawar wrote at about 18:27:34 +0100 on Friday, March 11, 2011:
>>
>> El 11/03/2011, a las 14:59, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky escribió:
>>
>>> Cesar Kawar wrote at about 10:08:10 +0100 on Friday, March 11, 2011:
>
>>> I think rsync uses
hans...@gmail.com wrote at about 04:04:04 +0700 on Saturday, March 12, 2011:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> > It is the number of files with more than one link that matter, not so much
> > the
> > total size. But the newer rsync that doesn't need the whole file tree
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> It is the number of files with more than one link that matter, not so much the
> total size. But the newer rsync that doesn't need the whole file tree loaded
> at
> once besides the link table and lots of RAM may permit it to scale up more.
Cesar Kawar wrote at about 18:27:34 +0100 on Friday, March 11, 2011:
>
> El 11/03/2011, a las 14:59, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky escribió:
>
> > Cesar Kawar wrote at about 10:08:10 +0100 on Friday, March 11, 2011:
> > I think rsync uses little if any cpu -- after all, it doesn't do much
> > other
El 11/03/2011, a las 14:59, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky escribió:
> Cesar Kawar wrote at about 10:08:10 +0100 on Friday, March 11, 2011:
>>
>>
>> El 11/03/2011, a las 08:04, hans...@gmail.com escribió:
>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Rob Poe wrote:
I'm using RSYNC to do backups of 2 BPC
On 10/03/11 03:46 PM, Michael Conner wrote:
> That is good to know. Actually things are a little better than I thought, the
> spare machine is Dell Dimension 2400 with a Pentium 4,
You may want to a) look for bad capacitors on the board (similar to
what's show at http://badcaps.net b) run a good
On 3/11/11 3:08 AM, Cesar Kawar wrote:
>
>> Rsync'ing is all fine and good until your hardlinked filesystem (I
>> don't know the proper term for it, as opposed to the pool") gets "too
>> big". It's a RAM issue, and an unavoidable consequence of rsync's
>> architecture - I'm not faulting rsync mind
Rob Poe wrote at about 21:56:52 -0600 on Thursday, March 10, 2011:
> I'm using RSYNC to do backups of 2 BPC servers. It works swimmingly,
> you plug the USB drive into the BPC server, it auto-mounts, emails that
> it's starting, does an RSYNC dump (with delete), flushes the buffers,
> dismo
Cesar Kawar wrote at about 10:08:10 +0100 on Friday, March 11, 2011:
>
>
> El 11/03/2011, a las 08:04, hans...@gmail.com escribió:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Rob Poe wrote:
> >> I'm using RSYNC to do backups of 2 BPC servers. It works swimmingly, you
> >> plug the USB driv
I'm not qualified to disagree Cesar, but my understanding is that the issue:
A - Has nothing to do with the size in TB of the filesystem, but the
number of hardlinks - therefore the number of source files, the
frequency of backups and the number of clients.
b Wasn't/isn't related to memory leaks,
El 11/03/2011, a las 08:04, hans...@gmail.com escribió:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Rob Poe wrote:
>> I'm using RSYNC to do backups of 2 BPC servers. It works swimmingly, you
>> plug the USB drive into the BPC server, it auto-mounts, emails that it's
>> starting, does an RSYNC dump (
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Rob Poe wrote:
> I'm using RSYNC to do backups of 2 BPC servers. It works swimmingly, you
> plug the USB drive into the BPC server, it auto-mounts, emails that it's
> starting, does an RSYNC dump (with delete), flushes the buffers, dismounts
> and emails.
Sou
I'm using RSYNC to do backups of 2 BPC servers. It works swimmingly,
you plug the USB drive into the BPC server, it auto-mounts, emails that
it's starting, does an RSYNC dump (with delete), flushes the buffers,
dismounts and emails.
On 3/10/2011 8:35 PM, hans...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Ma
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky
wrote:
> I wrote a script BackupPC_copyPcPool that I posted to the list that should be
> a bit more efficient & faster than BackupPC_tarPCCopy
Noted, and thanks
--
hans...@gmail.com wrote at about 09:35:49 +0700 on Friday, March 11, 2011:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Michael Conner wrote:
> > That is good to know. Actually things are a little better than I thought,
> > the spare machine is Dell Dimension 2400 with a Pentium 4, max 2 gb
> > memor
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Michael Conner wrote:
> That is good to know. Actually things are a little better than I thought, the
> spare machine is Dell Dimension 2400 with a Pentium 4, max 2 gb memory. So I
> guess I could slap a new bigger drive into it and use it. My basic plan is to
Tyler J. Wagner wrote at about 23:00:47 + on Thursday, March 10, 2011:
> On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 20:10 +0100, Cesar Kawar wrote:
> > El 10/03/2011, a las 19:55, Michael Conner escribió:
> > > One additional question: are there any advantages to any particular
> > > flavor of Linux for BPC?
Tyler J. Wagner wrote at about 23:05:34 + on Thursday, March 10, 2011:
> On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 16:32 -0500, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> > Debian does have one potentially MAJOR downside -- that is that since
> > dpkg (and hence also apt) makes it hard to override package
> > dependencies,
On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 16:32 -0500, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> Debian does have one potentially MAJOR downside -- that is that since
> dpkg (and hence also apt) makes it hard to override package
> dependencies, you are stuck with all the other packages that the
> Debian BackupPC package draws in,
On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 20:10 +0100, Cesar Kawar wrote:
> El 10/03/2011, a las 19:55, Michael Conner escribió:
> > One additional question: are there any advantages to any particular flavor
> > of Linux for BPC?
> I prefer Debian, all BackupPC installations I've done I've used Debian and
> never h
Michael Conner wrote at about 14:46:21 -0600 on Thursday, March 10, 2011:
> That is good to know. Actually things are a little better than I thought,
> the spare machine is Dell Dimension 2400 with a Pentium 4, max 2 gb memory.
> So I guess I could slap a new bigger drive into it and use it. M
Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote at about 13:35:31 -0600 on Thursday, March 10,
2011:
> On 03/10 12:55 , Michael Conner wrote:
> > One additional question: are there any advantages to any particular flavor
> > of Linux for BPC?
>
>
> Debian.
> Just because it's the best distro ever of all
That is good to know. Actually things are a little better than I thought, the
spare machine is Dell Dimension 2400 with a Pentium 4, max 2 gb memory. So I
guess I could slap a new bigger drive into it and use it. My basic plan is to
get backups going to one machine and then dupe those to an NAS
On 03/10 12:55 , Michael Conner wrote:
> One additional question: are there any advantages to any particular flavor of
> Linux for BPC?
Debian.
Just because it's the best distro ever of all time and nothing else comes
close.
(note, the above was sarcasm; but it really does have a very nice bac
Michael Conner wrote at about 12:55:58 -0600 on Thursday, March 10, 2011:
> Thanks to all who replied. You all basically confirmed my feeling that using
> our web server as the backup server was not best practice. I just hoped we
> might get by without buying another computer, even though it w
On 3/10/2011 12:55 PM, Michael Conner wrote:
> Thanks to all who replied. You all basically confirmed my feeling that using
> our web server as the backup server was not best practice. I just hoped we
> might get by without buying another computer, even though it wouldn't need to
> be a very exp
El 10/03/2011, a las 19:55, Michael Conner escribió:
> Thanks to all who replied. You all basically confirmed my feeling that using
> our web server as the backup server was not best practice. I just hoped we
> might get by without buying another computer, even though it wouldn't need to
> be
Thanks to all who replied. You all basically confirmed my feeling that using
our web server as the backup server was not best practice. I just hoped we
might get by without buying another computer, even though it wouldn't need to
be a very expensive one. The only spare computer we have now is an
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Michael Conner wrote:
> and a NAS (and may be adding another). Note that my Linux knowledge is still
> limited but growing as I look at more open source stuff.
So here's another reason to set up that second NAS.
What I've done is set up a separate (bigger) NAS t
It is possible, but I don't think it's a good idea.
If the hardware dies or it is stolen, you'll end up having your backup stolen
too. You will loose both copies, the original and the backed up one.
And, of course, care should be taken to prevent people from outside to access
the backuppc cgi.
On 03/10 08:59 , Michael Conner wrote:
> I've been reading the documentation and various other things on the web, and
> one basic question I'm unsure about is whether it is possible or advisable to
> run BPC on the web server.
It's not adviseable, for the reasons you mentioned elsewhere in your
> I'm looking at BackupPC and other options for a network-wide backup system
> in the museum where I work. We have about 10 Windows computers, one OS X,
> one web server running CENTOS 5.5, and an NAS (and may be adding another).
> Note that my Linux knowledge is still limited but growing as I look
I'm looking at BackupPC and other options for a network-wide backup system in
the museum where I work. We have about 10 Windows computers, one OS X, one web
server running CENTOS 5.5, and an NAS (and may be adding another). Note that my
Linux knowledge is still limited but growing as I look at m
45 matches
Mail list logo
