On 12/01/16 07:56, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:
Hi Gandalf,
Just jumping in here to hopefully provide some guidance. I understand
that it can be extremely frustrating when you are migrating from a
product you have used for years and has worked well enough to some new
product and it isn't
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Adam Goryachev
wrote:
>
> 2016-01-10 00:21:40 Aborting backup up after signal INT
>
> This line seems to be out of context. I don't think it is related to the
> previous (completed) backup, and it shouldn't be related to the
2016-01-12 1:08 GMT+01:00 Les Mikesell :
> That seems wrong - (maybe, depending on the counts you are configured
> to save). But I thought in your first posting you said you had a
> 'partial'. Those would be discarded when a better one completes.
> And one of your log
On 12/01/16 11:26, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:
> 2016-01-12 1:08 GMT+01:00 Les Mikesell :
>> That seems wrong - (maybe, depending on the counts you are configured
>> to save). But I thought in your first posting you said you had a
>> 'partial'. Those would be discarded
2016-01-11 23:29 GMT+01:00 Adam Goryachev :
> 1) Define and control your environment
> * Define the specs of both your server and client (disks, ram, cpu,
> network, raid level, lvm, filesystem, etc)
> * Only add one server at a time, when it is working well,
2016-01-12 1:43 GMT+01:00 Adam Goryachev :
> OK, so we created a new directory for the new host, and started the
> first backup (should be number 0).
Yes, it was #0
> The backup completed with 4181687 files (looks like a bug because bytes
> equals # files)
2016-01-12 1:53 GMT+01:00 Les Mikesell :
> Is there any chance you could have
> started more than one instance of the backuppc server?
Absolutely not. Only "rsync_bpc" is always twice for each running
backup (in this case, 1 running backup, so 2 rsync_bpc"
backuppc 27940
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Gandalf Corvotempesta
wrote:
> >
> server: DELL PE2950 with 2GB ram and 1 quad-core CPU, 6 SATA disks in RAID-5
RAID-5 will cost a lot in performance on small writes.
> Initially I've added just 1 server: the biggest one, to
Please don't trim so much, it is very useful to still keep the original
log that is being discussed.
On 12/01/16 11:57, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:
> 2016-01-12 1:43 GMT+01:00 Adam Goryachev
> :
>> The backup completed with 4181687 files (looks like a bug
2016-01-12 1:43 GMT+01:00 Adam Goryachev :
> A full can certainly happen after a failed incremental, we don't know
> why. Again, the time looks very strange, how was this initiated? Can you
> provide copies of your configs? The detailed backup logs?
I can
Hello Mickael, thanks !!
How do you proceed in backuppc to launch winexe before backup ? Can you give me
an example ?
How to install winexe on debian 7 ?
Thanks, and sorry for my english !
+--
|This was sent by
2016-01-11 3:03 GMT+01:00 Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom :
> I don't know v4, but in v3 we generally do this with a cron job. Something
> like this, which causes a job to go off on September 7th.
> 00 01 7 9 * backuppc /usr/share/backuppc/bin/BackupPC_serverMesg backup
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gandalf Corvotempesta [mailto:gandalf.corvotempe...@gmail.com]
> Sent: den 11 januari 2016 09:27
> To: General list for user discussion, questions and support
> Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC 4 very slow
>
> 2016-01-11 6:57 GMT+01:00 Alexander Moisseev
2016-01-12 2:19 GMT+01:00 Adam Goryachev :
> Please don't trim so much, it is very useful to still keep the original
> log that is being discussed.
I've not trimmed at all.
> I would strongly suggest that something has happened here which could be
> explained
Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:
> Exactly. This server has more or less 150GB of files.
I'm using BackupPC 3.3.1 for a while now and backing up a partition of more
than
100GB (from a macbook client) was requiering more than 24 hours on a backupPC
server with only 2GB of RAM. Increasing the RAM
2016-01-11 21:32 GMT+01:00 Les Mikesell :
> I don't recognize that 'unknown host' log entry. If the transfers
> wait for whatever is writing it, it might cause a delay where the time
> will depend on the DNS response - if you get an immediate NXDOMAIN
> from a local server
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Gandalf Corvotempesta
wrote:
> 2016-01-11 19:10 GMT+01:00 Les Mikesell :
>> Wild guess here, but 'host unknown' usually means something has done a
>> DNS lookup (or reverse, number to name) that has failed.
On 11.01.16 11:33, Sorin Srbu wrote:
> Aren't there usually quite some questions about how to set up the
> blackout-periods and related?
> There is a lot of confusion on how to set this up.
>
> May I suggest an overhaul in the GUI, and may be the docs description, for
> this feature to simplify
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexander Moisseev [mailto:mois...@mezonplus.ru]
> Sent: den 11 januari 2016 12:48
> To: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC 4 very slow
>
> On 11.01.16 11:33, Sorin Srbu wrote:
> > Aren't there usually quite some questions
On 11.01.16 11:27, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:
> But for the rest of my questions ?
>
> Is the partial backup a "good one"? Should't it be an incremental ?
> Why both are "filled"? If I understood properly, only the last one is
> filled.
2016-01-10 08:10:48 incr backup started for directory
2016-01-11 12:37 GMT+01:00 Alexander Moisseev :
> The incremental backup was interrupted due to fatal error. So, it is
> "partial". It means only some files were backed up.
> http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/BackupPC-4.0.0alpha3_doc.html#Backup-basics
Status 24 should not
On 01/11 09:32 , Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:
> 2016-01-11 3:03 GMT+01:00 Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom :
> > I don't know v4, but in v3 we generally do this with a cron job. Something
> > like this, which causes a job to go off on September 7th.
> > 00 01 7 9 * backuppc
2016-01-11 14:16 GMT+01:00 Gandalf Corvotempesta
:
> Something is not working properly and, after all, is absolutely
> nonsense 24/48 hours for each backup. The same server with Bacula was
> completed in 16 hours.
For example, rsync transfer stars, then it stop
2016-01-11 18:05 GMT+01:00 Gandalf Corvotempesta
:
> 17 seconds (18:02:58 => 18:03:15) without doing anything. This
> happens every 10-15 second and is a waste of time.
> Plain rsync doens't have this issue. What is happening in these 17
> seconds on server side?
2016-01-11 17:28 GMT+01:00 Les Mikesell :
> I haven't used v4 but it sounds like you have some issue with your
> network, rsync, or lack of resources. The main difference between a
> full and incremental should just be that the full will do a complete
> read on the client
On 01/11 05:58 , Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:
> I don't have any issue with my network, the same server, with Bacula
> (i'm running Bacula and BackupPC on the same server, obviously one per
> time)
> will backup the same huge client in 16 hours, not 3 days.
>
> Same server, same disks, same
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom
wrote:
> On 01/11 09:32 , Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:
>> 2016-01-11 3:03 GMT+01:00 Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom :
>> > I don't know v4, but in v3 we generally do this with a cron job. Something
>> >
2016-01-11 18:18 GMT+01:00 Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom :
> For initial transfers, rsync is notably slower than tar or the like (I don't
> remember how Bacula does it). After the initial transfers tho, it should get
> faster. If you're still seeing this slowness after a couple of
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta
wrote:
> 2016-01-11 18:05 GMT+01:00 Gandalf Corvotempesta
> :
>> 17 seconds (18:02:58 => 18:03:15) without doing anything. This
>> happens every 10-15 second and is a waste
2016-01-11 18:47 GMT+01:00 Les Mikesell :
> What about RAM and disk speed?
2GB and standard SATA disks @7200
Tomorrow (if backup will end) i'll add more ram up to 4GB or 8GB
> In any case you might check
> to see if the server side has free RAM and is not swapping to disk.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta
wrote:
> 2016-01-11 17:28 GMT+01:00 Les Mikesell :
>> I haven't used v4 but it sounds like you have some issue with your
>> network, rsync, or lack of resources. The main difference
2016-01-11 18:53 GMT+01:00 Gandalf Corvotempesta
:
> I would like to add more ram, but i'm waiting for current backup to
> end from this Friday
Anyway, 2 days ago I had 1 full backup completed. a couple of hours
after, an incremental was started and
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta
wrote:
> 2016-01-11 18:53 GMT+01:00 Gandalf Corvotempesta
> :
>> I would like to add more ram, but i'm waiting for current backup to
>> end from this Friday
>
>
2016-01-11 19:04 GMT+01:00 Les Mikesell :
> Are you sure the full completely succeeded? If not it might have
> been marked as a 'partial' which would be replaced by a subsequent run
> with more files.
100% sure, i've seen backups marked as "full". Ok for "partial"
2016-01-11 19:10 GMT+01:00 Les Mikesell :
> Wild guess here, but 'host unknown' usually means something has done a
> DNS lookup (or reverse, number to name) that has failed. DNS lookups
> can be slow.Maybe sticking the client hosts and IPs in your
> /etc/hosts file
35 matches
Mail list logo