On Mon 10 Feb 2014, Lorenz wrote:
grep -v # /etc/rsnapshot | grep [a-z]
i.e. the /etc/rsnapshot minus the comments and the empty lines:
I'd recommend using 'grep .' to find non-empty lines... shorter and more
accurate :-)
rsync_long_args -ev
Hello,
One approach is to backup to a disk image on Mac OS X (.sparsebundle) and then
to push or pull the disk image over to your remote GNU/LINUX system (possibly
via rsync. LBackup has a scripting sub-system to handle exactly this kind of
situation. It is not as fancy as the bug fix you
I'm using a mixture of FreeBSD w/ ZFS+snapshots and rsync to backup all
the servers at my day job. This works pretty good overall but on one
server it's not working so well :)
We have an Exchange 2003 server with 4 separate mail store databases.
One of them is roughly 900GB the others are
-- Original Message --
From: br...@sqls.net
To: rsync@lists.samba.org
Sent: 2/10/2014 8:38:06 AM
Subject: Rsync performance with large exchange database files
I'm using a mixture of FreeBSD w/ ZFS+snapshots and rsync to backup all
the servers at my day job. This works pretty good
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
3.1.0 will probably help some.
What are the specs of the FreeBSD system? I have found that ZFS on
FreeBSD is extremely RAM hungry. In my experience 8GB of RAM is the
minimum if dedup is disabled and 16BG of RAM for when dedup is enabled.
Also, a
-- Original Message --
From: Kevin Korb k...@sanitarium.net
To: rsync@lists.samba.org
Sent: 2/10/2014 10:57:08 AM
Subject: Re: Rsync performance with large exchange database files
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
3.1.0 will probably help some.
What are the specs of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
If possible try adding a cache disk. It doesn't have to be anything
special.
On 02/10/2014 12:12 PM, br...@sqls.net wrote:
-- Original Message -- From: Kevin Korb
k...@sanitarium.net To: rsync@lists.samba.org Sent: 2/10/2014
10:57:08
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Paul Slootman paul+rs...@wurtel.netwrote:
Besides the extraneous -e option this should work.
No, the later --rsh option overrides the weird v string, so that's not
the issue. It appears to be that whatever compiled version of rsync he is
using doesn't allow
Okay, so I've done some testing..
I created a roughly 4gb file from one of the smaller exchange database
files.
If I copy that to remotely to my desktop, I get about 45-50MB/sec read
speed off the D (exchange database) drive. If I copy that back to the C
drive (just the OS) for the
Clean copy. I even used the -W flag to see if it made a difference but,
nope.
I'm testing this same test on some of my other servers too. See if
there's any common-ground I can find.
On another servers (MS SQL Server) with faster disks I tried a similar
test just now. There's only the C
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rsync is known to be pretty inefficient on local copies (-W is forced
there btw) and cygwin doesn't really help with that either.
Essentially, when not networking rsync isn't much smarter than cp but
it has a ton of extra overhead.
Also, maybe you
Well the local test was just to a test to see if I could understand why
the remote sync of the exchange database was so slow. I've heard that
rsync is less efficient for local copies but this isn't like 80% the
performance, or half the performance.. It's a massive difference - which
I
Bruce there is also bacula which seems to be available for all the os's you
are running.
http://www.bacula.org/en/?page=documentation
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:24 PM, br...@sqls.net wrote:
Well the local test was just to a test to see if I could understand why
the remote sync of the
On 26/01/14 18:03, L.A. Walsh wrote:
But multiple TCP connections are not used to load a single picture.
They are used
for separate items on the page. A single TCP stream CAN be very fast
and rsync
isn't close to hitting that limit.
The proof? Using 1Gb connections, smb/cifs could get
14 matches
Mail list logo
