From: dan <dan...@gm...> - 2008-08-06 04:16:27
|
I have investigated cluster filesystems for backuppc. You will have very poor I/O on all cluster filesystems. I/O is the most important factor for backuppc and the performance difference between a local filesystem(or even iscsi or aoe) and a cluster filesystem can be an order of magnitude slower I/O performance. I had hoped to use a cluster filesystem to maintain a redundant copy of my backuppc data but performance was incredibly bad. I find fuse filesystems such as mysqlfs or zfs-fuse to be much faster. On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Holger Parplies <wb...@pa...> wrote: > Hi, > > sabujp wrote on 2008-08-04 23:18:41 -0400 [[BackupPC-users] clustered file > system and multiple servers]: > > > > Can a dev let me know if the files in the pool are FLOCK'd before > writing, > > use the force, read the source. "grep -r flock backuppc-3.1.0" suggests > that > flock is used, but not on pool files. Not surprising, considering > BackupPC_link > and BackupPC_nightly (or two instances of BackupPC_link) may not run > concurrently (BackupPC_link is responsible for entering new files into the > pool). > > Come to think of it, the reason for this restriction is of a different > nature: > BackupPC_nightly sometimes needs to rename pool files (with a common > BackupPC > hash, when one or more files out of the chain are deleted), while > BackupPC_link > may insert a new file with the same BackupPC hash. You can't prevent the > resulting race condition with flock() - at least you don't effectively > change > anything in the single-threaded case (you'd need a rather global lock). > > > i.e. is there a chance that two servers backing up into the same top > level > > data directory could "mangle" a file in the pool in this manner? > > I don't think you'd have mixed file contents (or, effectively, a corrupt > compressed file), but there seems to be a chance of linking a file in a > backup > to the wrong pool file (wrong contents altogether). > > You could probably use flock() to prevent two instances of > BackupPC_link/BackupPC_nightly running simultaneously on different servers, > but there are more things you would want to think about (running > BackupPC_nightly on more than one server does not make much sense, even if > they don't run concurrently; limiting simultaneous backups over all > servers; > ensuring BackupPC_dump is not run twice simultaneously for the same host > ...). > > In short: sharing a pool between servers is currently not supported. > > Regards, > Holger > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > BackupPC-users mailing list > Bac...@li... > List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users > Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net > Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ > |