This thread has been beat to death, so perhaps my $0.02 isn't so
meaningful, but I wrote a set of rsync scripts in php
that I've used for years to manage terabytes of backups going back years
of time. It's called TINBackupBuddy and you can get it at
http://www.effortlessis.com/thisisnotbackupbud
On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 15:50 -0800, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
> We have been looking at implementing deduplication on a backup server.
> >From what I have been able to find the available documentation is
> pretty thin. I ended up trying to install LessFS on this CentOS 5.7
> box but we have now enco
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
>>
> If this is only a 1-2 year temporary solution and the backups will be
> discarded once a permanent solution is obtained then I'm sure it will be OK.
>
> If your thinking of building a long-term backup solution this way then your
> buildin
On Jan 17, 2012, at 4:00 PM, "Hugh E Cruickshank" wrote:
> From: Les Mikesell Sent: January 17, 2012 05:56
>>
>> Big disks are cheap these days - I wouldn't worry that much about the
>> total space that much and you'll still be able to keep a lot online.
>
> This is true for current hardware ho
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Nataraj wrote:
>
>>> At this point I am only reading the experience of others, but I am
>>> inclined to try it. I backup a mediawiki/mysql database and the new
>>> records are added to the database largely by appending. Even with
>>> compression, it's a pain to b
On 01/17/2012 07:31 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Nothing will fix a file if the disk underneath goes bad and you aren't
> running raid. And in my case I run raid1 and regularly swap disks out
> for offsite copies and resync. But, backuppc makes the links based on
> an actual comparison, so if an old
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Nataraj wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't trust any of the software block-dedup systems with my only
>> copy of something important - plus they need a lot of RAM which your
>> old systems probably don't have either.
>>
>
> I am interested in backuppc, however from what I read
On 01/17/2012 04:59 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 01/17/12 4:41 PM, Nataraj wrote:
>> On 01/17/2012 03:36 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
I wouldn't trust any of the software block-dedup systems with my only
copy of something important - plus they need a lot of RAM which your
old systems
On 01/17/12 4:41 PM, Nataraj wrote:
> On 01/17/2012 03:36 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> >
>> > I wouldn't trust any of the software block-dedup systems with my only
>> > copy of something important - plus they need a lot of RAM which your
>> > old systems probably don't have either.
>> >
> I am int
On 01/18/2012 01:46 AM, Nataraj wrote:
> On 01/17/2012 02:36 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>> On 01/17/2012 09:29 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
>>> From: Nataraj Sent: January 16, 2012 23:56
The ZFSonlinux project from LLNL looks promising (native mode kernel
implementation, pool version
On 01/17/2012 02:36 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> On 01/17/2012 09:29 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
>> From: Nataraj Sent: January 16, 2012 23:56
>>> The ZFSonlinux project from LLNL looks promising (native mode kernel
>>> implementation, pool version 28), although the version that supports
>>>
On 01/17/2012 03:36 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> I wouldn't trust any of the software block-dedup systems with my only
> copy of something important - plus they need a lot of RAM which your
> old systems probably don't have either.
>
I am interested in backuppc, however from what I read online it a
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
>>
>> Big disks are cheap these days - I wouldn't worry that much about the
>> total space that much and you'll still be able to keep a lot online.
>
> This is true for current hardware however I am attempting to reuse our
> existing hardw
On 01/17/2012 09:29 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
> From: Nataraj Sent: January 16, 2012 23:56
>>
>> The ZFSonlinux project from LLNL looks promising (native mode kernel
>> implementation, pool version 28), although the version that supports
>> mountable filesystems is still in the RC stage. I wou
From: John R Pierce Sent: January 17, 2012 13:17
>
> penny wise, and pound foolish comes to mind here. that older server
> probably has 1-2 single core processors, too, right? a 2
> socket modern
> 2U could virtualize a dozen of those and outperform each one.
This may be true in your envir
On 01/17/12 1:00 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
> From: Les Mikesell Sent: January 17, 2012 05:56
>> >
>> > Big disks are cheap these days - I wouldn't worry that much about the
>> > total space that much and you'll still be able to keep a lot online.
> This is true for current hardware however
From: Les Mikesell Sent: January 17, 2012 05:56
>
> Big disks are cheap these days - I wouldn't worry that much about the
> total space that much and you'll still be able to keep a lot online.
This is true for current hardware however I am attempting to reuse our
existing hardware that has been p
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
>
> Later this year or early next year we will replacing all our production
> servers and use the latest RHEL available at the time (probably RHEL6).
> We will then look at upgrading all the backup and development servers
> to the correspo
From: Lars Hecking Sent: January 17, 2012 01:51
>
> Maybe try CentOS6. We've had numerous fuse issues with other software
> on CentOS5 and one recommendation was to use a newer kernel, which
> essentially means a newer distro.
I had considered this but I have been avoiding it. All our product
From: David Hrbác Sent: January 16, 2012 22:55
>
> I've got something in my repo
> http://fs12.vsb.cz/hrb33/el5/hrb/stable/i386/repoview/fuse-les
sfs.html.
> Might be somewhat outdated. You can try it and we can build new
> versions. As to alternatives I'm happy with rdiff-backup.
Hi David:
Both
From: Nataraj Sent: January 16, 2012 23:56
>
> The ZFSonlinux project from LLNL looks promising (native mode kernel
> implementation, pool version 28), although the version that supports
> mountable filesystems is still in the RC stage. I would want
> some solid
> testing before deploying in a ba
From: John R Pierce Sent: January 16, 2012 21:45
>
> I hope you know, dedup systems rarely scale well, as the
> corpus of files
> get bigger and bigger, they can really grind to a halt.
Thanks, I have read that but I have not seen any quantitative
qualifications on this so I was planning on doi
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
>
>> > If not LessFS can you suggest an alternate deduplication software?
>>
>> Backuppc dedups (and compresses) at the file level using hardlinks.
>
> Trust you to always come up with an interesting suggestion or two. I
> will have a fur
Hugh E Cruickshank writes:
> Hi All:
>
> We have been looking at implementing deduplication on a backup server.
> From what I have been able to find the available documentation is
> pretty thin. I ended up trying to install LessFS on this CentOS 5.7
> box but we have now encountered problems with
On 01/16/2012 03:50 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> We have been looking at implementing deduplication on a backup server.
> >From what I have been able to find the available documentation is
> pretty thin. I ended up trying to install LessFS on this CentOS 5.7
> box but we have now enc
Dne 17.1.2012 0:50, Hugh E Cruickshank napsal(a):
> Hi All:
>
> We have been looking at implementing deduplication on a backup server.
> >From what I have been able to find the available documentation is
> pretty thin. I ended up trying to install LessFS on this CentOS 5.7
> box but we have now enc
On 01/16/12 9:26 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
> Trust you to always come up with an interesting suggestion or two. I
> will have a further look at this but, on first blush, I do not think
> that this will be very effective in our environment. We will be backing
> up several small databases 1-8 GB
From: Les Mikesell Sent: January 16, 2012 20:55
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
> >
> > If not LessFS can you suggest an alternate deduplication software?
>
> Backuppc dedups (and compresses) at the file level using hardlinks.
> Not quite as effective as a block level
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
>
> We have been looking at implementing deduplication on a backup server.
> >From what I have been able to find the available documentation is
> pretty thin. I ended up trying to install LessFS on this CentOS 5.7
> box but we have now enc
From: Ken godee Sent: January 16, 2012 19:58
> > We have been looking at implementing deduplication on a
> backup server.
> >
> > If not LessFS can you suggest an alternate deduplication software?
> >
>
> http://openindiana.org/
> Solaris 11 Express
> http://www.freebsd.org/releases/9.0R/announce
> We have been looking at implementing deduplication on a backup server.
>
> If not LessFS can you suggest an alternate deduplication software?
>
http://openindiana.org/
Solaris 11 Express
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/9.0R/announce.html
(ZFS pool version >= 28)
___
Hi All:
We have been looking at implementing deduplication on a backup server.
>From what I have been able to find the available documentation is
pretty thin. I ended up trying to install LessFS on this CentOS 5.7
box but we have now encountered problems with fuse version.
Has anyone out there be
32 matches
Mail list logo
