John writes:
> I'm using BackupPC and find it great.
> Backups work fine, but restores over rsync and ssh are failing with an
> rsync error:
>
> Running: /usr/bin/ssh -q -x -i /home/backuppc/.ssh/identity -l rbackup
> www.myhost.com /usr/bin/rsync --server --numeric-ids --perms --owner
> --group
John Pettitt wrote:
> Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps it could be a feature if it checksum checks could be disabled
>> altogether
>> for situations where the bandwidth is cheap but cpu time is expensive?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Evren
>>
>>
> That option is called "tar" :-)
>
> John
Yes, but ta
John T. Yocum wrote:
> Actually, i'm using tar for backups.
Do the backups take longer also or only the transferred data is getting smaller?
It might be so that you are transferring less data so your average transferred
data is going smaller.?
> --John
>
> Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>> I figured that
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>>
>> Also I see the --ignore-times option in rsync args for full backups. Why
>> is this necessary exactly?
>
> If you don't, you are trusting that every file that has the same name,
> timestamp and length on the previous backup still matches the conte
Hello Holger
any news about this issue?
Thank you,
Dirk
Dirk wrote:
> Hi Holger,
>
> thank you very much for your reply.
>
> Holger Parplies wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Dirk wrote on 18.02.2007 at 09:33:51 [[BackupPC-users] Get a file list via
>> command line?]:
>>
>>> how can I get a list
Hi,
Winston Chan wrote on 28.03.2007 at 21:04:08 [Re: [BackupPC-users] Unable to
connect to BackupPC server error]:
> I had been running BackupPC on an Ubuntu computer for several months to
> back the computer to a spare hard drive without problem. About the time
> I added a new host
> Hi,
>
> Winston Chan wrote on 27.03.2007 at 20:58:00 [Re: [BackupPC-users] Unable to
> connect to BackupPC server error]:
> > > > I had been running BackupPC on an Ubuntu computer for several months to
> > > > back the computer to a spare hard drive without problem. About the time
> > > > I ad
Hi,
John Hannfield wrote on 28.03.2007 at 16:12:23 [[BackupPC-users] rsync error:
error allocating core memory buffers]:
> Backups work fine, but restores over rsync and ssh are failing with an
> rsync error:
> [...]
> Has anyone seen this before and know of a solution?
no, but I notice that you
This system doesn't have RAID on it, and yes I am using tar.
I have dir_index enabled, and journaling set to writeback. As well, the
partition is mounted with noatime.
As for rsync, I haven't tried that yet.
Thank you,
John
David Rees wrote:
> On 3/28/07, John T. Yocum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
On 3/28/07, John T. Yocum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the iostat output, the server is doing two full backups at the
> moment, along with a nightly. Server specs: P4 3.2Ghz, 512MB RAM, 300GB
> SATA drive.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# iostat
> Linux 2.6.9-42.0.10.ELsmp (backup2.fluidhosting.co
Evren Yurtesen wrote:
> I figured that --cheksum-seed option will help me, although I cant say yet
> if it is working or not, I guess it will take a while until checksum caches
> are written for all the files. Do you have this option enabled?
Don't expect a huge difference from that. You still ha
Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>
> Also I see the --ignore-times option in rsync args for full backups. Why
> is this necessary exactly?
If you don't, you are trusting that every file that has the same name,
timestamp and length on the previous backup still matches the contents
on the target. It probab
Actually, i'm using tar for backups.
--John
Evren Yurtesen wrote:
> I figured that --cheksum-seed option will help me, although I cant say yet
> if it is working or not, I guess it will take a while until checksum caches
> are written for all the files. Do you have this option enabled?
>
> Thank
I figured that --cheksum-seed option will help me, although I cant say yet
if it is working or not, I guess it will take a while until checksum caches
are written for all the files. Do you have this option enabled?
Thanks,
Evren
John T. Yocum wrote:
> Here is the iostat output, the server is doin
Here is the iostat output, the server is doing two full backups at the
moment, along with a nightly. Server specs: P4 3.2Ghz, 512MB RAM, 300GB
SATA drive.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# iostat
Linux 2.6.9-42.0.10.ELsmp (backup2.fluidhosting.com)03/28/2007
avg-cpu: %user %nice%sys %iowait %i
Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>
> Perhaps it could be a feature if it checksum checks could be disabled
> altogether
> for situations where the bandwidth is cheap but cpu time is expensive?
>
> Thanks,
> Evren
>
>
That option is called "tar" :-)
John
John Pettitt wrote:
> Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>> BackupPC Manual mentions:
>>
>>
>> Each file is examined by generating block checksums (default 2K
>> blocks) on the receiving side (that's the BackupPC side), sending
>> those checksums to the cli
benjamin thielsen wrote:
> hi-
>
> i'm having what is probably a basic problem, but i'm not sure where
> to look next in troubleshooting. i've got a working installation,
> currently backing up 4 machines, and decided to add an archive host,
> but it's not showing up. the log file indicates
Evren Yurtesen wrote:
> BackupPC Manual mentions:
>
>
> Each file is examined by generating block checksums (default 2K blocks) on
> the receiving side (that's the BackupPC side), sending those checksums to the
> client, where the remote rsync
hi-
i'm having what is probably a basic problem, but i'm not sure where
to look next in troubleshooting. i've got a working installation,
currently backing up 4 machines, and decided to add an archive host,
but it's not showing up. the log file indicates "2007-03-27 09:31:44
Added host f
I don't see mine either, I think it's normal. It wouldn't make sense to
show that type of information (# of incrementals, etc) for an archive
host, I don't think...
brien
benjamin thielsen wrote:
> hi-
>
> i'm having what is probably a basic problem, but i'm not sure where
> to look next in
BackupPC Manual mentions:
Each file is examined by generating block checksums (default 2K blocks) on the
receiving side (that's the BackupPC side), sending those checksums to the
client, where the remote rsync matches those checksums with the
hi-
i'm having what is probably a basic problem, but i'm not sure where
to look next in troubleshooting. i've got a working installation,
currently backing up 4 machines, and decided to add an archive host,
but it's not showing up. the log file indicates "2007-03-27 09:31:44
Added host f
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>
>> 2MB/sec isn't bad when handling a lot of files (try unpacking a tar with
>>> hundreds of thousands of little files to see). The problem is that you
>>
>> Yes it is terrible. I get much better performance if I do the tar
>> option with the same f
Evren Yurtesen wrote:
> John T. Yocum wrote:
>
>> According to the 3ware CLI, the cache is enabled.
>>
>
> I have the same problem with much slower speeds (since I dont use SATA
> or raid it makes things worse) My finding is that backuppc is doing a
> lot of work while checking the files.
I have run rsync manually to copy all files from a server where backups
take 600 minutes.
John Pettitt wrote:
> Jason Hughes wrote:
>> Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>>> I am saying that it is slow. I am not complaining that it is crap. I
>>> think when something is really slow, I should have right to sa
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>
>> I am sorry but I have been patient enough with them also. I have done
>> most of the suggestions about speeding it up and the tests etc. even
>> though I knew that none of those suggestions will help and some were
>> the most irrelevant things I
David Rees wrote:
> On 3/27/07, Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes it is terrible. I get much better performance if I do the tar option
>> with the same files. As a matter of fact I was using a smaller script
>> for taking backups earlier. (which I still use on some servers) and
>> tr
Evren Yurtesen wrote:
> I am sorry but I have been patient enough with them also. I have done
> most of the suggestions about speeding it up and the tests etc. even
> though I knew that none of those suggestions will help and some were the
> most irrelevant things I have heard.
Have you added
John T. Yocum wrote:
> According to the 3ware CLI, the cache is enabled.
I have the same problem with much slower speeds (since I dont use SATA
or raid it makes things worse) My finding is that backuppc is doing a
lot of work while checking the files. Can you check if you are seeing
extreme dis
Here are some benchmarks I ran last week: I think it's important
to balance the -s with the -n numbers so that you are
dealing with the same amount of data, otherwise caching can bite you
and you can have misleading results. Therefore, I used 10k file-size,
and adjusted the number of files to
On Mar 28, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Rob Shepherd wrote:
> Tony Schreiner wrote:
>> I am wanting to run BackupPC 3.0 on a Solaris 10 system
>> ( warnings from last week notwithstanding ).
>> I am stuck at installing Compress::Zlib (doing it with perl -MCPAN
>> -e shell). Getting many errors during
Hello,
I'm using BackupPC and find it great.
Backups work fine, but restores over rsync and ssh are failing with an
rsync error:
Running: /usr/bin/ssh -q -x -i /home/backuppc/.ssh/identity -l rbackup
www.myhost.com /usr/bin/rsync --server --numeric-ids --perms --owner
--group -D --links --hard-lin
Tony Schreiner wrote:
> I am wanting to run BackupPC 3.0 on a Solaris 10 system ( warnings
> from last week notwithstanding ).
>
> I am stuck at installing Compress::Zlib (doing it with perl -MCPAN -e
> shell). Getting many errors during the compile. Have other Solaris
> folks had trouble he
I am wanting to run BackupPC 3.0 on a Solaris 10 system ( warnings
from last week notwithstanding ).
I am stuck at installing Compress::Zlib (doing it with perl -MCPAN -e
shell). Getting many errors during the compile. Have other Solaris
folks had trouble here?
Tony Schreiner
Boston College
According to the 3ware CLI, the cache is enabled.
--John
John Pettitt wrote:
> Have you checked that the 3ware actually has cache enabled - it has a
> habit of disabling it if the battery backup is bad or missing and it
> will make a *huge* difference
>
> John
>
> John T. Yocum wrote:
>>
Evren Yurtesen wrote:
> 2MB/sec isn't bad when handling a lot of files (try unpacking a tar with
>> hundreds of thousands of little files to see). The problem is that you
>
> Yes it is terrible. I get much better performance if I do the tar option
> with the same files. As a matter of fact I
Following the extended discussion of system benchmarks here are some
actual numbers from a FreeBSD box - if anybody has the time to run
similar numbers on linux boxes I will happily collate the data.
John
2.93 GHz Celeron D, 768 MB ram FreeBSD 6.2
bonnie++ -f 0 -d . -s 3072 -n 10:10:10:1
Edo wrote:
I have been using backuppc 2.x for some time now.
As I am setting up a new serve I would like to use the latest
release of backuppc, 3.0.
I have tried to google with "what's new backuppc 3.0".
Unfortunatly I could not find a good anwser.
The backuppc site just shows some differen
Hi Everyone,
I have been using backuppc 2.x for some time now.
As I am setting up a new serve I would like to use the latest release of
backuppc, 3.0.
I have tried to google with "what's new backuppc 3.0".
Unfortunatly I could not find a good anwser.
The backuppc site just sh
On 3/28/07, David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a sample from my backuppc server which has 3 disks while
> backups are being run. The backuppc partition uses 2 disks in RAID1
> exactly the same as yours. The other disk is the system disk (also
> 7200rpm ATA).
> Hardware/OS: AthlonXP 2000
On 3/27/07, Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes it is terrible. I get much better performance if I do the tar option
> with the same files. As a matter of fact I was using a smaller script
> for taking backups earlier. (which I still use on some servers) and
> transfer files over NFS. I
42 matches
Mail list logo
