On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:34 AM, wrote:
> >>
>> But even little automated things like logfile rotation can add up when
>> you catch it across a bunch of noisy hosts. You don't really need to
>> store the whole contents of yesterday's messages.1 and today's
>> messages.2 separately when they are t
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:42 PM, wrote:
>
>> > Backuppc will match up identical content, no matter where it finds it.
>>> If it is a different copy or moved to a different location it does
>>> have to transfer it to the backuppc server, but then it will be
>>> discarded and
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:42 PM, wrote:
> > Backuppc will match up identical content, no matter where it finds it.
>> If it is a different copy or moved to a different location it does
>> have to transfer it to the backuppc server, but then it will be
>> discarded and replaced with a link to the
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of Les Mikesell
> Sent: den 5 november 2013 22:10
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] [OT] Building a new backup server
>
> >Thanks for
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of John R Pierce
> Sent: den 5 november 2013 19:08
> To: centos@centos.org
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] [OT] Building a new backup server
>
> other open source backu
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of Les Mikesell
> Sent: den 5 november 2013 16:47
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] [OT] Building a new backup server
>
> If you have some time to
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:25 PM, wrote:
>>
Yeah, I know, we're trying to move stuff around, that's not
infrequent, given the amount of data my folks generate.
>>>
>>> And that's the other place that backuppc will help. If you move a
>>> file that is already in
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:25 PM, wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Yeah, I know, we're trying to move stuff around, that's not infrequent,
>>> given the amount of data my folks generate.
>>
>> And that's the other place that backuppc will help. If you move a
>> file that is already in an existing backup, backuppc
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:45 PM, wrote:
>>>
>> Yeah, I know, we're trying to move stuff around, that's not infrequent,
>> given the amount of data my folks generate.
>
> And that's the other place that backuppc will help. If you move a
> file that is already in an existing b
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:45 PM, wrote:
>>
> Yeah, I know, we're trying to move stuff around, that's not infrequent,
> given the amount of data my folks generate.
And that's the other place that backuppc will help. If you move a
file that is already in an existing backup, backuppc's rsync will c
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:41 PM, wrote:
>> We have a *bunch* of d/bs. Oracle. MySQL. Postgresql. All with about a
>> week's dumps from every night, and then backups of them to the b/u
>> servers. I can't imagine how they'd be a win - don't remember just off
>> the top of my
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:41 PM, wrote:
> Hey, Les,
>
>Thanks for changing the subject to OT.
Errr... I just replied in gmail - I think it has been there all along.
> We have a *bunch* of d/bs. Oracle. MySQL. Postgresql. All with about a
> week's dumps from every night, and then backups of t
On 11/5/2013 12:41 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> We have a*bunch* of d/bs. Oracle. MySQL. Postgresql. All with about a
> week's dumps from every night, and then backups of them to the b/u
> servers. I can't imagine how they'd be a win - don't remember just off the
> top of my head if they're compr
Hey, Les,
Thanks for changing the subject to OT.
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 1:28 PM, wrote:
>>
>> As I noted, we make sure rsync uses hard links... but we have a good
number of individual people and projects with who *each* have a good
number of terabytes of data and genera
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 1:28 PM, wrote:
>
> As I noted, we make sure rsync uses hard links... but we have a good
> number of individual people and projects with who *each* have a good
> number of terabytes of data and generated data. Some of our 2TB drives are
> over 90% full, and then there's the
John R Pierce wrote:
> On 11/5/2013 7:52 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> I don't think that's going to happen. First, we have an in-house
>> developed backup system that works just fine. Second, we*are* backup
up something
>> over a hundred servers and workstations to a few backup servers. Third,
>
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:10 PM, wrote:
>>
> Well, no - my manager, who's been here a bunch of years, wrote it years
> ago. And I'm not quite sure what you're saying - we have a centralized
> logging host, and the backup cron job on each machine emails its results
> to our admin mailing list.
No
On 11/5/2013 7:52 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> I don't think that's going to happen. First, we have an in-house developed
> backup system that works just fine. Second, we*are* backup up something
> over a hundred servers and workstations to a few backup servers. Third, we
> are talking, in some c
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM, wrote:
>>
>> Still not sounding like we need it. We back up /etc from all our servers
>> (except for the compute cluster nodes every night, and keep about 5
>> weeks.
>> Home directories are 100% NFS-mounted from servers, and those are backed
On 11/5/2013 5:06 AM, Sorin Srbu wrote:
> Do we have other options than BackupPC on CentOS that might work better?
the only reason to say it doesn't handle those usecases well is that
each incremental will probably backup the whole file so it won't dedup
at all... well, ANY backup system will be
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM, wrote:
>
> Still not sounding like we need it. We back up /etc from all our servers
> (except for the compute cluster nodes every night, and keep about 5 weeks.
> Home directories are 100% NFS-mounted from servers, and those are backed
> up every night onto a hand
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 10:48 AM, wrote:
>> >
>>> I'm not quite at that scale in a single instance myself, but I'm
>>> fairly sure many users on the backuppc mail list are, so it is not
>>> necessarily a problem, although there are some tradeoffs with extra
>>> overhead for c
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 10:48 AM, wrote:
> >
>> I'm not quite at that scale in a single instance myself, but I'm
>> fairly sure many users on the backuppc mail list are, so it is not
>> necessarily a problem, although there are some tradeoffs with extra
>> overhead for compression and the extra po
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:52 AM, wrote:
>>> Have you tried backuppc? There are some tradeoffs because it makes an
>>> extra hardlink into a pool directory tree where the name is a hash of
>>> the content, but it takes care of all the other stuff for you and
>>> would le
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:52 AM, wrote:
>>>
>> Have you tried backuppc? There are some tradeoffs because it makes an
>> extra hardlink into a pool directory tree where the name is a hash of
>> the content, but it takes care of all the other stuff for you and
>> would let you store a much longer h
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:27 AM, wrote:
>> >>
>>> No, rsync will only hardlink to instances of the same file in the same
>>> location from previous runs. Backuppc will link every file with
>>
>> True. But we have a directory structure like
>> .../servername
>>
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Sorin Srbu wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
>> Behalf Of Les Mikesell
>> Sent: den 5 november 2013 15:09
>> To: CentOS mailing list
>> Subject: Re:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:27 AM, wrote:
> >>
>> No, rsync will only hardlink to instances of the same file in the same
>> location from previous runs. Backuppc will link every file with
>
> True. But we have a directory structure like
> .../servername
> |
> -> date-weeks-
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 8:32 AM, wrote:
>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Sorin Srbu
>>> wrote:
>
Can e.g. BackupPC handle several file systems to backup to?
I.e. comp1 through 10 should backup to /bak1, comp 11 through 20 to
/bak2
On 05.11.2013 16:06, Sorin Srbu wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
>> Behalf Of m.r...@5-cent.us
>> Sent: den 5 november 2013 15:35
>> To: CentOS mailing list
>> Subject: Re: [CentO
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 8:32 AM, wrote:
>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Sorin Srbu
>>> wrote:
>
Can e.g. BackupPC handle several file systems to backup to?
I.e. comp1 through 10 should backup to /bak1, comp 11 through 20 to
/bak2
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 8:32 AM, wrote:
>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Sorin Srbu
>>> wrote:
>
Can e.g. BackupPC handle several file systems to backup to?
I.e. comp1 through 10 should backup to /bak1, comp 11 through 20 to
/bak2
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of m.r...@5-cent.us
> Sent: den 5 november 2013 15:35
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] [OT] Building a new backup server
>
> > According to Wi
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 8:32 AM, wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Sorin Srbu
>> wrote:
>>> Can e.g. BackupPC handle several file systems to backup to?
>>> I.e. comp1 through 10 should backup to /bak1, comp 11 through 20 to
>>> /bak2 and so on.
>>
>> The main po
Sorin Srbu wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
>> Behalf Of SilverTip257
>> Sent: den 5 november 2013 14:36
>> To: CentOS mailing list
>> Subject: Re: [CentOS] [OT] Building a new bac
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Sorin Srbu
> wrote:
>>>
>> Can e.g. BackupPC handle several file systems to backup to?
>> I.e. comp1 through 10 should backup to /bak1, comp 11 through 20 to
>> /bak2 and so on.
>
> The main point of backuppc is that it hard-links all files wit
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of Les Mikesell
> Sent: den 5 november 2013 15:09
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] [OT] Building a new backup server
>
> > Can e.g. BackupPC han
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of SilverTip257
> Sent: den 5 november 2013 14:36
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] [OT] Building a new backup server
>
> > > In that case i
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Sorin Srbu wrote:
>>
> Can e.g. BackupPC handle several file systems to backup to?
> I.e. comp1 through 10 should backup to /bak1, comp 11 through 20 to /bak2 and
> so on.
>
The main point of backuppc is that it hard-links all files with
identical content to save s
ember 2013 22:30
>>> To: centos@centos.org
>>> Subject: Re: [CentOS] [OT] Building a new backup server
>>>
>>> In that case it might be better to switch to XFS which is supported by
>>> Red Hat up to 100TB so up to that capacity should work well.
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Sorin Srbu wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> > Behalf Of Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
> > Sent: den 4 november 2013 22:30
> > To: centos@centos.org
> > S
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
> Sent: den 4 november 2013 22:30
> To: centos@centos.org
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] [OT] Building a new backup server
>
> In that case it m
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of Keith Keller
> Sent: den 4 november 2013 20:19
> To: centos@centos.org
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] [OT] Building a new backup server
>
> > What about this 1 GB RA
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of Les Mikesell
> Sent: den 4 november 2013 18:31
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] [OT] Building a new backup server
>
> BackupPC pools data with
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of John R Pierce
> Sent: den 4 november 2013 18:08
> To: centos@centos.org
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] [OT] Building a new backup server
>
> On 11/4/2013 4:44 AM, So
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of m.r...@5-cent.us
> Sent: den 4 november 2013 18:06
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] [OT] Building a new backup server
>
> > Any hints as t
On 04.11.2013 18:05, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Sorin Srbu wrote:
>> Guys,
>>
>> I was thrown a cheap OEM-server with a 120 GB SSD and 10 x 4 TB
> SATA-disks for the data-backup to build a backup server. It's built
> around an Asus
> Z87-A
>> that seems to have problems with anything Linux unfortuna
On 2013-11-04, Sorin Srbu wrote:
>
> What about this 1 GB RAM per TB disk-space for XFS in order to be able to do
> an fsck?
> I don't think I can fit that much RAM (40 GB) on this particular motherboard.
That is somewhat of a guideline; I have done an fsck on largish
filesystems with much less
On 2013-11-04, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 11/4/2013 9:30 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> Besides, if you have a problem with a truly humongous RAID, the rebuild
>>> >will finish sometime around next summer
>> Yes, I'd probably use a RAID10 style RAID so it runs at full speed
>> even with a drive ou
On 11/4/2013 9:30 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Besides, if you have a problem with a truly humongous RAID, the rebuild
>> >will finish sometime around next summer
> Yes, I'd probably use a RAID10 style RAID so it runs at full speed
> even with a drive out of the array so you can put off the rebui
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:05 AM, wrote:
>>
>> I was thrown a cheap OEM-server with a 120 GB SSD and 10 x 4 TB
> SATA-disks for the data-backup to build a backup server. It's built
> around an Asus
> Z87-A
>> that seems to have problems with anything Linux unfortunately.
>>
>> Anyway, BackupPC is
On 11/4/2013 4:44 AM, Sorin Srbu wrote:
> I've come so far as installing Fedora 19 and having it see all the
> hard-drives, but it refuses to create any partition bigger than approx. 16 TB
> with ext4.
>
> I've never had to deal with this big raid-arrays before and am a bit stumped.
use XFS for la
Sorin Srbu wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I was thrown a cheap OEM-server with a 120 GB SSD and 10 x 4 TB
SATA-disks for the data-backup to build a backup server. It's built
around an Asus
Z87-A
> that seems to have problems with anything Linux unfortunately.
>
> Anyway, BackupPC is my preferred backup-solutio
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of Nux!
> Sent: den 4 november 2013 14:02
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] [OT] Building a new backup server
>
> Please check this page, if you
On 04.11.2013 12:44, Sorin Srbu wrote:
>
> Anyway, BackupPC is my preferred backup-solution, so I went ahead to
> install
> another favourite, CentOS 6.4 - and failed.
>
> The raid controller is a Highpoint RocketRAID 2740 and its driver is
> suggested
> to be prior to starting Anaconda by way
> -Original Message-
> From: Reindl Harald [mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net]
> Sent: den 4 november 2013 13:48
> To: CentOS mailing list; Sorin Srbu
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] [OT] Building a new backup server
>
> Am 04.11.2013 13:44, schrieb Sorin Srbu:
> > I&#
56 matches
Mail list logo
