On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 16:38 -0500, Zach La Celle wrote:
Regarding some other responses, I'll be sure to try eSATA next time
instead of USB to see if that tends to be more stable. I could also use
internal drives, I suppose...the real reason we're using external disks
is so that we can
hi,
I use backuppc to save a webserver. The issue is that the application
used on it is making thousand of little files used for a game to create
maps and various things. The issue is that we are now at 100GB of data
and 8.030.000 files so the backups takes 48H and more (to help the files
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 10:42 +0100, Jean Spirat wrote:
hi,
I use backuppc to save a webserver. The issue is that the application
used on it is making thousand of little files used for a game to create
maps and various things. The issue is that we are now at 100GB of data
and 8.030.000
r.
I would suggest you try the following:
Move to tar over ssh on the remote webserver, the first full backup
might well take a long time but the following ones should be faster.
tar+ssh backups however use more bandwidth but as you are already using
nfs I am assuming you are on a local
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 11:49 +0100, Jean Spirat wrote:
I would suggest you try the following:
tar+ssh backups however use more bandwidth but as you are already using
nfs I am assuming you are on a local network of some sort.
for my understanding rsync had allways seems to be the most
Dne 16.12.2011 10:18, Tim Fletcher napsal(a):
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 16:38 -0500, Zach La Celle wrote:
Regarding some other responses, I'll be sure to try eSATA next time
instead of USB to see if that tends to be more stable. I could also use
internal drives, I suppose...the real reason
I highly recommend **against** using any protocol conversion in the
mix USB to eSATA or whatever.
True eSATA is fine - obviously the quality of the hardware is an
issue. Firewire is also OK but getting rarer these days.
Internal SATA to eSATA should also not be a problem, not really doing
any
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 4:49 AM, Jean Spirat jean.spi...@squirk.org wrote:
Hum i cannot directly use the FS i have no access to the NFS server that
is on the hosting company side i just have access to the webserver that
use the nfs partition to store it's content. Right now i also mount the
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Jean Spirat jean.spi...@squirk.org wrote:
The issue is that we are now at 100GB of data
and 8.030.000 files so the backups takes 48H and more (to help the files
are on NFS share). I think i come to the point where file backup is at
it's limit.
What about a
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 07:33 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 4:49 AM, Jean Spirat jean.spi...@squirk.org wrote:
for my understanding rsync had allways seems to be the most efficient
of the two but i never challenged this fact ;p
Rsync working natively is very efficient,
Hi,
On Friday 16 December 2011 10:42:00 Jean Spirat wrote:
I use backuppc to save a webserver. The issue is that the application
used on it is making thousand of little files used for a game to create
maps and various things. The issue is that we are now at 100GB of data
and 8.030.000 files
Excuse my off topic-ness, but with that many small files I kind of expect a
filesystem to reach certain limits. Why is that webapp written to use many
little files? Why not with a database where all that stuff is in blobs?
That whould be easier to maintain and easier to back up.
Have fun,
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Jean Spirat jean.spi...@squirk.org wrote:
Excuse my off topic-ness, but with that many small files I kind of expect a
filesystem to reach certain limits. Why is that webapp written to use many
little files? Why not with a database where all that stuff is in
13 matches
Mail list logo
