* I would like to merge backups with a move type of consolidation. Not
a copy. Is it possible?
* If the above is not possible, can I choose which backups to be
included in a Virtual Backup (Vbackup)? It seems like Vbackup only
support to consolidate everything. Like having a chain of F+I+I+I+I
Dear All,
Is it possible to rate limit how fast a backup is sent to the SD? I have
three collocated boxes, and they all send data at about 100m/s! We're on
a 20 meg line, so you can imagine what happens to the rest of our
internet abilities when the backups are running. Any ideas on how to
Hi,
I would like to know if is true that I have so slow troughput as this:
*CATALOG
---
** FD Bytes Written: 478,808,703 (478.8 MB)
SD Bytes Written: 478,809,069 (478.8 MB)
Rate: 402.0 KB/s
Software Compression: None
INCREMENTAL
--
SD Bytes
Hi,
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009, Gabriel - IP Guys wrote:
Is it possible to rate limit how fast a backup is sent to the SD? I have
three collocated boxes, and they all send data at about 100m/s! We're on
a 20 meg line, so you can imagine what happens to the rest of our
internet abilities when the
Is it possible to rate limit how fast a backup is sent to the SD? I have
three collocated boxes, and they all send data at about 100m/s! We're on
a 20 meg line, so you can imagine what happens to the rest of our
internet abilities when the backups are running. Any ideas on how to
slow
Hi Carlo,
for any modern hardware your rates sound low.
Below is an example I get in my home system (Core2 Duo, 8GB memory, CentOS
5.4 Linux 64-bit), writing to external USB disk, with no compression.
Backing up a local disk, catalog database on the same physical disk too (not
an ideal
I have tried to add Heartbeat Interval = 120 on both fd and dir. Don't know if
it should also be added to SD?
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: John Drescher [mailto:dresche...@gmail.com]
Sendt: 8. december 2009 15:04
Til: Ralf Gross; bacula-users
Emne: Re: [Bacula-users] Fatal append error
mehma sarja wrote:
PLEASE BE CAREFUL:
a. I do know I re-init-ed the indexes - I had to dump and reload the
database and I re-init-ed it in the process.
b. This is a delicate process and I played with it for many weeks.
This can be achieved without dropping the database. Indexes can be
Anyone can recommend a application for Microsoft Windows to limit the
bandwidth? Looking for something that is as invisible as possible for
the user and only limit the bacula-fd process or port. Freeware or open
source of course..
On 12/09/2009 11:14 AM, Thomas Mueller wrote:
Is it
Hayden Katzenellenbogen wrote:
TiN,
The write-cache is already enabled. Just checked. I have turned all the
settings onto performance just in case. But looking at iostat it does not
seem to have made any difference.
Write cache should only be enabled if the card has a BBU (battery backup
Hi,
I'm testing to backup two Windows 2008, the first 32 bit, the second 64bit
In both case the backup jobs go well, but if I tried to 'restore' the files
I can't see them as I post here:
-
Automatically selected FileSet: Windows-bacula
Carlo Filippetto carlo.filippe...@gmail.com kirjoitti viestissä
news:8791c1920912090626o4735d964v7eb1031c885a0...@mail.gmail.com...
Hi,
I'm testing to backup two Windows 2008, the first 32 bit, the second 64bit
In both case the backup jobs go well, but if I tried to 'restore' the
files I
Carlo Filippetto wrote:
Hi,
I would like to know if is true that I have so slow troughput as this:
[...]
FULL
-
Elapsed time: 1 day 22 hours 13 mins 37 secs
[...]
Rate: 371.7 KB/s
Software Compression: 15.5 %
[...]
All my jobs have the maximum
Steve,
1. I am seeing this performance when doing full backups.
2. I am not using software compression as the TL2000 provides hardware
compression by default
3. The data is 1.7TB and is around 750 000 files. The actual directories have
around 2.1 million files. (using regex to only backup the
Sean M Clark wrote:
Carlo Filippetto wrote:
Hi,
I would like to know if is true that I have so slow troughput as this:
[...]
FULL
-
Elapsed time: 1 day 22 hours 13 mins 37 secs
[...]
Rate: 371.7 KB/s
Software Compression:
Yup got one of those. It has saved my bacon once already.
-H
-Original Message-
From: Dan Langille [mailto:d...@langille.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:03 AM
To: Hayden Katzenellenbogen
Cc: Timo Neuvonen; bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Network
Mehma,
Sorry man wish that was the case. It was doing this on 3.0.1 and then I
decided that maybe an upgrade would help.
It was doing this when the database was on the local machine. I moved it
to its own machine and it was still slow. I have also upgraded the
kernel.
I will get our db
Hello again, folk,
Checked out there and there's really only a few negligible results
on this problem.
Following a full upgrade, from 2.4.4 to 3.0.2 (all packages), the
bconsole program just won't let me connect.
I've checked both .conf files, passwords/addresses/etc, tried
changing
2009/12/9 Shawn sh...@artemide.us
Hello again, folk,
Checked out there and there's really only a few negligible results on
this problem.
Following a full upgrade, from 2.4.4 to 3.0.2 (all packages), the
bconsole program just won't let me connect.
I've checked both .conf
-Original Message-
From: Shawn [mailto:sh...@artemide.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 12:13 PM
To: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Post-upgrade, from 2.4.4 to 3.0.2, bconsole
is hung up.
Hello again, folk,
Checked out there and
2009/12/9 Shawn sh...@artemide.us
Hello again, folk,
Checked out there and there's really only a few negligible results on
this problem.
Following a full upgrade, from 2.4.4 to 3.0.2 (all packages), the
bconsole program just won't let me connect.
I've checked
Everyone,
Here is a little update. I finally after many months have been able to
run my first restore.
I started an 800G restore. Which is half of my 1.7TB backup.
I ran iostat while it was restoring and was getting between 50 and 140
Meg/s. I would say the average is around 85Meg/s.
This
Hayden Katzenellenbogen wrote:
Everyone,
Here is a little update. I finally after many months have been able to
run my first restore.
I started an 800G restore. Which is half of my 1.7TB backup.
I ran iostat while it was restoring and was getting between 50 and 140
Meg/s. I would
Steve,
I do not have any encryption turned on unless it is on by default. I
know I did not compile SSL into Bacula.
I have not looked at top for long periods but it is a dual quad core
system with 4 gigs of ram. I have not seen any of the cores maxed out.
Thanks
-H
-Original Message-
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 11:34 -0600, lars_nor...@mcafee.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Shawn [mailto:sh...@artemide.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 12:13 PM
To: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Post-upgrade, from 2.4.4 to 3.0.2,
2009/12/9 Shawn sh...@artemide.us
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 11:34 -0600, lars_nor...@mcafee.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Shawn [mailto:sh...@artemide.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 12:13 PM
To: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bacula-users]
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009, Hayden Katzenellenbogen wrote:
I started an 800G restore. Which is half of my 1.7TB backup.
I ran iostat while it was restoring and was getting between 50 and 140
Meg/s. I would say the average is around 85Meg/s.
Is that 85MByte/sec across the network or from local
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 14:32 -0500, John Drescher wrote:
2009/12/9 Shawn sh...@artemide.us
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 11:34 -0600, lars_nor...@mcafee.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Shawn [mailto:sh...@artemide.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 12:13 PM
To:
Gavin,
Here is a quick summary.
This is a single machine it is running file, storage and director
daemon. The postgres database is on a separate machine. All services are
communicating via IP not the loopback. There does not seem to be any
difference in speed if I use loopback or IP.
This is a
Sorry,
Left out the tape drive. It is a Dell TL2000 connected via fiber
channel. Using 10 LTO-4 tapes.
The tape drive is connected to a QLogic 4Gb Fibre Channel card.
-H
-Original Message-
From: Gavin McCullagh [mailto:gavin.mccull...@gcd.ie]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:38
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 14:49 -0500, Shawn wrote:
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 14:32 -0500, John Drescher wrote:
2009/12/9 Shawn sh...@artemide.us
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 11:34 -0600, lars_nor...@mcafee.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Shawn [mailto:sh...@artemide.us]
Anyone can recommend a application for Microsoft Windows to limit the
bandwidth? Looking for something that is as invisible as possible for
the user and only limit the bacula-fd process or port. Freeware or
open
source of course..
Ideally, from a network architecture point of view, that
I'm stupid...
I have seen the C:/, but as I'm used too see the root (/) on linux I
thought that it was the root for windows, but in the backup it is a normal
directory on the / !!
So I have to enter in the C:/ and after I can see all my backups
Sorry and thanks!!
2009/12/9 Timo Neuvonen
Hi everyone. I have a new problem with a particular backup in my environment.
I'm using bacula 3.0.2 across all components. This has been running fine for
some time however this particular laptop used to be running linux(recently it
was switched over to XP).
This laptop is recently routinely
I am not sure why this job is not progressing. I have tried
umount/mount and things don't progress. No messages from the console. I
am not running concurrent jobs. Recent changes (week or so ago) include
duplicate job control.
Bacula 3.0.3 on FreeBSD 8.x
client running now is also 3.0.3 on
In addition, the tape in the drive is:
$ echo 'list media' | bconsole | grep DLT7000-017
| 60 | DLT7000-017 | Recycle | 1 | 1 |
0 | 63,072,000 | 1 |0 | 1 | DLT |
2008-02-20 16:34:58 |
36 matches
Mail list logo
