Hi Ccddtt, Yesterday ccddtt wrote:
> Hi, > > Thanks! > Very sorry, I did not carefully read the RSYNC document.I have just tested, > RSYNC is really only to send the updated file block. > very grateful to you for help, and this solves the problem I wrote the > code.(this is a happy thing) > > By the way, RSYNC command parameters I use the rsync -azh , > the -z is > -z, --compress compress file data during the transfer > > I think use this good. > > and I not use ssh over rsync. ssh encrypted data packet, it will increase my > traffic. > > Thanks! also note, that rsync can do 'in-place' updates, then it will only modify the changed block and not copy the entire rrd file at the destination which might be helful. cheers tobi > > > > > 2012-07-18 > > > > > > ???? Ryan Kubica > ????? 2012-07-18 00:05:47 > ???? Simon Hobson; rrd-users@lists.oetiker.ch > ??? > ??? Re: [rrd-users] Incremental backup rrd file > > > > I'll second all of this about rsync: it's very efficient and 'safe' for rrd > data copies. > > > I don't have backups per-se, I run active mirrored rrd servers with millions > of rrd datafiles per server and if one crashes where I need to rebuild one or > install a new one for hardware upgrade like I'm doing today, then I use rsync > to get a copy from another mirror ... actively. The replacement-mirror > writes behind in the rrd update queue so it's updating older intervals than > the rest of the cluster and then I copy from another mirror. I'm currently > copying 1TB (one terabyte) and it works beautifully. > > > rsync would take a long time to do backups nightly of that many files (which > is why it's not done); but on a few thousand'ish it can(should!) be used. > > > If you use rsync over ssh, at least do something like this: rsync -ave 'ssh > -c blowfish' src dst > > > I've yet to bother with rsync daemon with no ssh, though that'd be more > efficient as well. > > > -Ryan > > > > > From: Simon Hobson <li...@thehobsons.co.uk> > To: rrd-users@lists.oetiker.ch > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 4:47 AM > Subject: Re: [rrd-users] Incremental backup rrd file > > > Darren Murphy wrote: > >Just to add a little to this, the --stats & --human-readable options > >provide useful insight as to the efficiency of rsync > <snip> > >So 3121 files totaling 4.3GB in size, and at least 90% of those files > >would change between successive sync runs, yet only a very small > >amount of data needs to be transferred. > > That tallies with my experience. Obviously it varies considerably > with the type of data, but I've yet to find something where it > doesn't show a reduction in data transferred. > In general, RRD files should 'compress' quite well (unless you use > very small consolidations). > > >I'd also add that in my experience rsync is incredibly robust and reliable. > >I've been running an hourly rsync from my main MRTG server to 3 > >separate "slaves" for almost 2 years now, and never once had a problem > >with data integrity. > > I'll second that. And of course, even if the process dies part way > through, you can just run it again and it will catch up. > > -- Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland http://it.oetiker.ch t...@oetiker.ch ++41 62 775 9902 / sb: -9900 _______________________________________________ rrd-users mailing list rrd-users@lists.oetiker.ch https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-users
