From: <cev...@ce...> - 2010-12-22 06:56:33
|
I am backing up /etc and /home on all my boxes. I should have tested to make sure that I can restore the files. But now I'm stuck. The host summary shows 91GB backed up. The /etc folder is 16GB of that, and /home is the rest. When I go to create a tar file to restore /home, all I see is the /etc folder. if I put /home where it says enter directory, I get an error. This happens with Firefox and Chrome. This is my configuration file for that box: # # Local server backup of /etc as user backuppc # $Conf{XferMethod} = 'rsync'; $Conf{RsyncShareName} = [ '/home', '/etc' ]; $Conf{RsyncArgs} = [ # # Do not edit these!$Conf{RsyncRestoreArgs} = [ # # Do not edit these! # '--numeric-ids', '--perms', '--owner', '--group', '-D', '--links', '--hard-links', '--times', '--block-size=2048', '--recursive', # # Rsync >= 2.6.3 supports the --checksum-seed option # which allows rsync checksum caching on the server. # Uncomment this to enable rsync checksum caching if # you have a recent client rsync version and you want # to enable checksum caching. # '--checksum-seed=32761', # # Add additional arguments here # ]; $Conf{RsyncRestoreArgs} = [ # '--numeric-ids', '--perms', '--owner', '--group', '-D', '--links', '--hard-links', '--times', '--block-size=2048', '--recursive', # # Rsync >= 2.6.3 supports the --checksum-seed option # which allows rsync checksum caching on the server. # Uncomment this to enable rsync checksum caching if # you have a recent client rsync version and you want # to enable checksum caching. # '--checksum-seed=32761', # # Add additional arguments here # ]; Where am I screwing up?????? |
From: Les M. <les...@gm...> - 2010-12-22 14:08:31
|
On 12/22/10 12:39 AM, cev...@ce... wrote: > I am backing up /etc and /home on all my boxes. > > I should have tested to make sure that I can restore the files. But > now I'm stuck. > > The host summary shows 91GB backed up. The /etc folder is 16GB of > that, and /home is the rest. > > When I go to create a tar file to restore /home, all I see is the > /etc folder. if I put /home where it says enter directory, I get > an error. This happens with Firefox and Chrome. > > This is my configuration file for that box: > > > # > # Local server backup of /etc as user backuppc > # > $Conf{XferMethod} = 'rsync'; > $Conf{RsyncShareName} = [ '/home', '/etc' ]; When you browse the backup in the web screen you should see a listing on the left side of the backup browse section for each of the share names with a + if they are not expanded. Click the /home or the + beside it to see the contents. -- Les Mikesell les...@gm... |
From: <cev...@ce...> - 2010-12-22 14:36:21
|
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:08:22 -0600, "Les Mikesell" <les...@gm...> said: > When you browse the backup in the web screen you should see a listing on > the left side of the backup browse section for each of the share names > with a + if they are not expanded. Click the /home or the + beside it to > see the contents. I'm sorry my previous email didn't make my issue plain: /home is *not visible* on that screen. I would expect to see /home at the bottom of that screen, after the listing of the contents of /etc. Again, just to be 100% clear, nothing resembling /home is visible on the web interface. Furthermore, it won't minimize /etc when I click the '-' next to it. TIA for any help. Christopher |
From: Les M. <les...@gm...> - 2010-12-22 19:41:39
|
On 12/22/2010 8:36 AM, cev...@ce... wrote: > On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:08:22 -0600, "Les Mikesell" > <les...@gm...> said: > >> When you browse the backup in the web screen you should see a listing on >> the left side of the backup browse section for each of the share names >> with a + if they are not expanded. Click the /home or the + beside it to >> see the contents. > > I'm sorry my previous email didn't make my issue plain: /home is *not > visible* on that screen. I would expect to see /home at the bottom of > that screen, after the listing of the contents of /etc. > > Again, just to be 100% clear, nothing resembling /home is visible on > the web interface. > > Furthermore, it won't minimize /etc when I click the '-' next to it. That sounds like there is something seriously wrong with your backups. If you look at the filesystem directly under the pc/<backup number> directories, do you see directories named f%2fetc and f%2fhome? -- Les Mikesell les...@gm... |
From: <cev...@ce...> - 2010-12-23 05:32:10
|
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:41:29 -0600, "Les Mikesell" <les...@gm...> said: > On 12/22/2010 8:36 AM, cev...@ce... wrote: {snipped} > > I'm sorry my previous email didn't make my issue plain: /home is *not > > visible* on that screen. I would expect to see /home at the bottom of > > that screen, after the listing of the contents of /etc. > > > > Again, just to be 100% clear, nothing resembling /home is visible on > > the web interface. > > > > Furthermore, it won't minimize /etc when I click the '-' next to it. > > That sounds like there is something seriously wrong with your backups. > If you look at the filesystem directly under the pc/<backup number> > directories, do you see directories named f%2fetc and f%2fhome? In fact I do see them them. Under f%2fhome I see all the directories I need restored with a f pre-pended. I think I have it: ceverett@pauli:~ > sudo su backuppc $ /usr/share/backuppc/bin/BackupPC_zipCreate -h xander -n -1 \ -s /home ceverett/ at least it seems to be grinding away now creating a zip file to restore from, where it is I have no clue. Christopher |
From: Chris B. <cb...@in...> - 2010-12-23 05:53:33
|
I had to upgrade my backup drive. I went from 2 1TB drives in a RAID 0 array to 2 2TB drives in a RAID 0 array. With the old drives and enclosure, my performance was about 4-5 MB per second. With the new drives, my performance is about 1.5 MB per second. This is terrible for a backup of any significance. Does anyone have any suggestions on why my bandwidth has gotten slower? Everything else is same as before. Chris Baker cb...@in... 512-425-2006 |
From: Les M. <les...@gm...> - 2010-12-23 06:09:47
|
On 12/22/10 11:53 PM, Chris Baker wrote: > I had to upgrade my backup drive. I went from 2 1TB drives in a RAID 0 > array to 2 2TB drives in a RAID 0 array. With the old drives and > enclosure, my performance was about 4-5 MB per second. With the new > drives, my performance is about 1.5 MB per second. This is terrible for a > backup of any significance. > > Does anyone have any suggestions on why my bandwidth has gotten slower? > Everything else is same as before. Do the 2TB drives use 4K sectors? Those need a fairly recent kernel and special partition alignment to avoid having to read and rewrite partially filled sectors. -- Les Mikesell les...@gm... |
From: Chris B. <cb...@in...> - 2010-12-23 07:19:44
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: Les Mikesell [mailto:les...@gm...] > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 12:10 AM > To: bac...@li... > Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] very slow backups > > On 12/22/10 11:53 PM, Chris Baker wrote: > > I had to upgrade my backup drive. I went from 2 1TB drives in a RAID 0 > > array to 2 2TB drives in a RAID 0 array. With the old drives and > > enclosure, my performance was about 4-5 MB per second. With the new > > drives, my performance is about 1.5 MB per second. This is terrible for > a > > backup of any significance. > > > > Does anyone have any suggestions on why my bandwidth has gotten slower? > > Everything else is same as before. > > > Do the 2TB drives use 4K sectors? Those need a fairly recent kernel and > special > partition alignment to avoid having to read and rewrite partially filled > sectors. > > -- > Les Mikesell Thank you for your response. I'm not sure what sector size my hard drives use. I do know that they are Western Digital Caviar Green drives with a 64 MB buffer. They are 7200 rpm. I know that partitions over 2048 GB have to be set up differently. If there is something else I need to do, I will do it. Partition is ext3. I'm thinking a lot about the need to upgrade this system. I haven't done much of anything with it since we got it back in 2008. BackupPC was such a bear to set up that I wasn't sure that I wanted to take that plunge again. My attitude has been don't upgrade unless you must. I remember doing a kernel upgrade and losing access to a drive. I didn't try it again. |
From: Les M. <les...@gm...> - 2010-12-23 13:47:36
|
On 12/23/10 1:19 AM, Chris Baker wrote: > > Thank you for your response. I'm not sure what sector size my hard drives > use. I do know that they are Western Digital Caviar Green drives with a 64 > MB buffer. They are 7200 rpm. > > I know that partitions over 2048 GB have to be set up differently. If > there is something else I need to do, I will do it. Partition is ext3. > > I'm thinking a lot about the need to upgrade this system. I haven't done > much of anything with it since we got it back in 2008. BackupPC was such a > bear to set up that I wasn't sure that I wanted to take that plunge again. > My attitude has been don't upgrade unless you must. > > I remember doing a kernel upgrade and losing access to a drive. I didn't > try it again. I'm pretty sure those do have 4k sectors. Here's something that popped up from google: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/storage/36189-wd-caviar-green-ears-2tb-linux.html The problem is that if you write less than 4k or if the start of the write isn't aligned at a 4k boundry, the drive has to read the sector, merge what you wrote, wait for the drive to spin around, and write it back. They are not supposed to be too bad if you can make the partition start at the right place. I ran into the problem trying to add a 750 gig laptop drive into an existing raid1 set for something to take offsite easily and gave up on getting it to sync in a day's time. I'll probably start over with that system when CentOS 6 is released. -- Les Mikesell les...@gm... |
From: gimili <gim...@gm...> - 2010-12-30 02:38:22
|
On 12/23/2010 2:19 AM, Chris Baker wrote: > I'm thinking a lot about the need to upgrade this system. I haven't done > much of anything with it since we got it back in 2008. BackupPC was such a > bear to set up that I wasn't sure that I wanted to take that plunge again. > My attitude has been don't upgrade unless you must. > > I remember doing a kernel upgrade and losing access to a drive. I didn't > try it again. I use debian stable and found backuppc to be fairly easy to setup. I just did an aptitude install backuppc if I recall correctly. I just use an old Dell gx270 optiplex with a couple of 1TB drives formatted ext3. Now that I have the backuppc config files for each machine it would be even simpler. I do not use raid and perhaps it causes a lot of headaches/complications? I have never had much trouble with kernel upgrades and debian. My backups run fairly fast but I did have an issue with the direct restore where it was slow to restore my entire backup from scratch. As far as speed perhaps one of your new drives is bad? Could you have a heat problem? Could you have a problem with a crimped network cable or bad switch? |