From: Jon S. <jsc...@po...> - 2005-08-25 14:27:58
|
Hi all, I am wondering if any one know if backuppc will work with removable drives that I can swap out every so often. I want to be able to do my backups on these drives and be able to take these drives off site so that in case of really bad emergencies still have a fairly recent backup. Thanks, -- Jon Scottorn Systems Administrator Possibility Forge 435.635.0591 x.1004 |
From: Les M. <le...@fu...> - 2005-08-25 17:37:11
|
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:27, Jon Scottorn wrote: > I am wondering if any one know if backuppc will work with removable > drives that I can swap out every so often. I want to be able to do my > backups on these drives and be able to take these drives off site so > that in case of really bad emergencies still have a fairly recent backup. Yes, there are several ways to do it as long as you realize that you have to keep the cpool and pc directories and everything underneath them on a single partition so the hardlinks will will work. The simple approach is to simply swap drives at some interval and let backuppc catch up on the new one. You can also build a raid1 mirror between an internal and matching removable drive and periodically break and rebuild the drive, or use LVM with snapshot capability and copy snapshot images to another drive. -- Les Mikesell le...@fu... |
From: <tm...@ob...> - 2005-08-26 01:40:39
|
bac...@li... wrote on 08/25/2005 10:27:33 AM: > Hi all, > > I am wondering if any one know if backuppc will work with removable > drives that I can swap out every so often. I want to be able to do my > backups on these drives and be able to take these drives off site so > that in case of really bad emergencies still have a fairly recent backup. I have a half-dozen of these servers in place working very nicely. Removable IDE drives that get swapped weekly. Except for an rsync problem with RHEL 4 (anyone else facing this?!?), it's working perfectly... Tim Massey |
From: Les S. <le...@cy...> - 2005-08-31 11:41:56
|
>I have a half-dozen of these servers in place working very nicely. >Removable IDE drives that get swapped weekly. > > > I've always been interested in this, backing up the backup server. Most of my sites at the moment are just backup servers. The clients know that the server itself doesn't get backed up. What kind of setup are you using with removable drives? entire backuppc directory lives on seperate partition, or only pool and pc directories? how do you manage it? stop backuppc, unmount, swap drive, remount, start backuppc? What happens when the changeover happens? if you did this weekly would it mean that as soon as you swap and restart backuppc that all clients attempt either a full or incremental? TIA for your insights :-) >Except for an rsync problem with RHEL 4 (anyone else facing this?!?), it's >working perfectly... > > > > I'm not sure about any rsync problems on RHEL4, can you elaborate? We've always noticed that rsync falls behind on RHEL4 (in versions), along with many other rpm's like spamassassin, perl etc. In most cases we have built the latest rsync from source on RHEL4 and the like and all seems well. Regards, Les |
From: <tm...@ob...> - 2005-08-31 19:43:02
|
Les Stott <le...@cy...> wrote on 08/31/2005 07:41:49 AM: > > >I have a half-dozen of these servers in place working very nicely. > >Removable IDE drives that get swapped weekly. > > > > What kind of setup are you using with removable drives? entire backuppc > directory lives on seperate partition, or only pool and pc directories? The backup server has two drives: a removable and a fixed. The fixed has a single 4GB partition with a Knoppix-based install. The removable is mounted to (from memory) /var/lib/backuppc. > how do you manage it? stop backuppc, unmount, swap drive, remount, start > backuppc? Close. Shutdown, remove drive, restart, and run a script that reformats the new drive clean. It's very much like changing a tape: the new backup media is completely clean and ready to go. I know that this undoes a great deal of the timesavings that BackupPC can give you for future backups. I do not care. My backup servers are only backing up file servers, not piles of client computers with thousands of identical files. There is very little savings in the pool (leaving out future backups of the same box), and I greatly prefer treating the removable hard drives just like I would tapes. I *like* forcing regular copies of these files onto multiple hard drives. YMMV, of course. > What happens when the changeover happens? if you did this > weekly would it mean that as soon as you swap and restart backuppc that > all clients attempt either a full or incremental? A full. Which is *exactly* how I want it. THIS IS NOT MANDATORY! If you didn't reformat the drive between inserts (like I do), you would have to back up a lot less data. Again, I do not care. > TIA for your insights :-) > > >Except for an rsync problem with RHEL 4 (anyone else facing this?!?), it's > >working perfectly... > > I'm not sure about any rsync problems on RHEL4, can you elaborate? We've > always noticed that rsync falls behind on RHEL4 (in versions), along > with many other rpm's like spamassassin, perl etc. In most cases we have > built the latest rsync from source on RHEL4 and the like and all seems well. I have built 2.6.6 from source, as well as at least two previous versions. Same error. I get an error that says that the child process terminated unexpectedly. According to my examination of the source, it's because the TCP connection between the two is dropped. I have no idea why, but I have two completely different servers, both running RHEL4 that fail in exactly the same way. One was previously running RHEL3 with no problems, and I installed RHEL4 to a new partition and now it fails. I don't think it's related specifically to rsync. I think it may be more related to something else that is affecting the TCP session. Unfortunately, I can find nothing interesting in any of the logs on either box... :( So, for now, I'm backing up just the data using SMB. Works, but not *nearly* as clean as my normal rsync solution. I've asked for help on this one on both this list and a coule of others, but no one else has any ideas, and I've gotten very little feedback. This is *not* unique to me, however. There are others with simlar issues. But no solutions. Tim Massey |
From: Les M. <le...@fu...> - 2005-08-31 20:13:39
|
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 15:08, tm...@ob... wrote: > I don't think it's related specifically to rsync. I think it may be more > related to something else that is affecting the TCP session. > Unfortunately, I can find nothing interesting in any of the logs on either > box... :( > > So, for now, I'm backing up just the data using SMB. Works, but not > *nearly* as clean as my normal rsync solution. I'm backing up a couple of centos4 boxes with tar and haven't noticed any trouble. Tar misses some things that rsync would catch on incrementals, like old files under a renamed directory but is OK otherwise if you have the bandwidth. > I've asked for help on this one on both this list and a coule of others, > but no one else has any ideas, and I've gotten very little feedback. This > is *not* unique to me, however. There are others with simlar issues. But > no solutions. RHEL4 should have ipv6 support and tcp congestion control on by default and these both can cause problems in various situations. But, I don't know enough about them to be much help. -- Les Mikesell le...@fu... |
From: <tm...@ob...> - 2005-08-31 20:56:02
|
Les Mikesell <le...@fu...> wrote on 08/31/2005 04:13:13 PM: > > I've asked for help on this one on both this list and a coule of others, > > but no one else has any ideas, and I've gotten very little feedback. This > > is *not* unique to me, however. There are others with simlar issues. But > > no solutions. > > RHEL4 should have ipv6 support and tcp congestion control on by default > and these both can cause problems in various situations. But, I don't > know enough about them to be much help. Thank you for the info: I'll see if I can investigate this further. BTW, This wasn't a complaint. I don't expect everyone else to do the work to fix my problems. It was more the fact that I'm surprised that no one else around here seems to be having this problem, either. Is no one else using RHEL4? Tim Massey |
From: Les M. <le...@fu...> - 2005-08-31 21:22:38
|
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 16:21, tm...@ob... wrote: > > RHEL4 should have ipv6 support and tcp congestion control on by default > > and these both can cause problems in various situations. But, I don't > > know enough about them to be much help. > > Thank you for the info: I'll see if I can investigate this further. > > BTW, This wasn't a complaint. I don't expect everyone else to do the work > to fix my problems. It was more the fact that I'm surprised that no one > else around here seems to be having this problem, either. Is no one else > using RHEL4? I'm not sure how popular it is - or how many people are aware of the free Centos4 clone. There is a fairly active mailling list for Centos4 that might recognize the issues. -- Les Mikesell le...@fu... |