Author: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:00:20 -0500
No, smb has no way to tell what part of a incomplete backup is good so it will have to start over every time and probably never succeed. And subsequent full runs also need to transfer the complete co
Author: Christian Völker <chrischan AT knebb DOT de>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:01:26 +0200
Waking up this thread :) Ok, we discovered (and meanwhile I saw it on my systems) when doing backuo with rsync the first full backup will take several days until finished. Once this is done, every fo
I might add that if a backup is taking 24 hours, when is the server actually doing any work? during the backup? what happens when files change before the backup is complete? is your backup truly a sn
Author: Rob Owens <rob.owens AT biochemfluidics DOT com>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:21:30 -0400
smb will do a complete transfer on every full backup. I think you should use rsync or rsyncd on Windows (through Cygwin) if you plan on backing up Windows machines remotely. -Rob ** The information t
Author: Christian Völker <chrischan AT knebb DOT de>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:15:44 +0200
Yohoo! BackupPC is running fine here and backing up my local servers. Now I have some remote servers which can be reached through a VPN. Unfortunately the connection speed is very slow (128Kb/s), bec
Author: Les Mikesell <les AT futuresource DOT com>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:29:47 -0500
If you are using openvpn you can give the end point its own ip address with routes through the local side and use that as the target address for the backup. If you are using rsync as the transfer met
Author: Christian Völker <chrischan AT knebb DOT de>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:34:25 +0200
Yes I know. That's not the issue. OpenVPN works perfectly with net2net and routes... Hmmm...may I check in some way how many data has been backed up? Even if it was a failed full backup? I remember i
Author: "Nils Breunese (Lemonbit)" <nils AT lemonbit DOT com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 21:40:05 +0200
http://www.mail-archive.com/backuppc-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net/msg11481.html Nils Breunese. -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest
Author: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:14:41 -0500
The web interface should show a 'partial' until the backup completes. I don't have one in that state so I'm not sure how much other info you get. A brute force way to check is to go to the backuppc p
Author: Chris Robertson <crobertson AT gci DOT net>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:25:55 -0800
A partial backup shows everything that a completed full or incremental does (#Files, Size/MB for existing and new as well as MB/sec). It's browseable just like a full or incremental. I'm not sure if
Author: Adam Goryachev <mailinglists AT websitemanagers.com DOT au>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:03:50 +1000
At some time, you need the daily admin process to run, depending on what version of backuppc you are using, but I think backups are not run during this time... You didn't send your host config file,
wow. id have to say that your cant trust that backup! partial backups every night? no consistent time which there would actually be a full backup? *maybe* every now and then? This is as good as not h
Author: "Nils Breunese (Lemonbit)" <nils AT lemonbit DOT com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 11:07:06 +0200
I'd try excluding some large directories, make sure that the backups succeed and then slowly remove the excludes one by one and build up your full backup that way. Once everything is on the remote ba
Author: Rob Owens <rob.owens AT biochemfluidics DOT com>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 07:25:19 -0400
Try setting ClientTimeout (on the Backup Settings tab) to something larger than the default 72000. 72000 seconds is 20 hours, which is approximately how long you say it takes your backup to fail. I
Author: Rob Owens <rob.owens AT biochemfluidics DOT com>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 07:27:47 -0400
With rsync, the difference between a full and incremental has more to do with processor and disk activity than with bandwidth. Both use about the same bandwidth. If you ask me, it doesn't make sense
With rsync, the difference between a full and incremental has more to do with processor and disk activity than with bandwidth. Both use about the same bandwidth. If you ask me, it doesn't make sense
Author: Holger Parplies <wbppc AT parplies DOT de>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 00:23:56 +0200
Hi, dan wrote on 2008-09-03 14:17:00 -0600 [Re: [BackupPC-users] Backup through slow line?]: yes, there are many different ways to look at this. I'll add one. I keep repeating this, so you might all
Author: Adam Goryachev <mailinglists AT websitemanagers.com DOT au>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 08:55:51 +1000
BTW, 2 x rsync incrementals of the same level will transfer more data than one full + one incremental. So for example, doing 6 incrementals followed by a full backup can in fact transfer a lot more d
Author: Holger Parplies <wbppc AT parplies DOT de>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 01:29:46 +0200
Hi, Adam Goryachev wrote on 2008-09-04 08:55:51 +1000 [Re: [BackupPC-users] Backup through slow line?]: a while ago, rsync incrementals used to be based on the last backup of the next lower level (i.
Author: Tino Schwarze <backuppc.lists AT tisc DOT de>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 08:57:15 +0200
[...] I like that explanation! :-) IMHO it should go to the Wiki. Tino. -- "What we nourish flourishes." - "Was wir nähren erblüht." www.craniosacralzentrum.de www.forteego.de -- This SF.Net email is