Cesar Kawar wrote at about 07:33:52 +0100 on Sunday, March 13, 2011:
>
>
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>
> El 13/03/2011, a las 02:10, "Jeffrey J. Kosowsky" <backuppc AT kosowsky DOT
> org> escribió:
>
> > Cesar Kawar wrote at about 23:07:53 +0100 on Friday, March 11, 2011:
> >>
> >> El 11/03/2011, a las 21:13, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky escribió:
> >>
> >>> Cesar Kawar wrote at about 18:27:34 +0100 on Friday, March 11, 2011:
> >>>>
> >>>> El 11/03/2011, a las 14:59, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky escribió:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Cesar Kawar wrote at about 10:08:10 +0100 on Friday, March 11, 2011:
> >>>
> > Honestly, I am a bit confused because your ability to rsync a 1TB
> > BackupPC archive in 2 hours seems to be at odds with the experience of
> > just about everyone else that talks about rsyncs taking days or
> > crashing on pools of just a few hundred gigabytes. And everybody else
> > has talked about memory issues. Indeed, if a 1TB archive of 1 year of
> > BackupPC data could be rsynced in 2 hours, I can almost guarantee that
> > we never would have had hundreds of threads looking for better ways to
> > backup a BackupPC archive. I would really love to understand why your
> > experience seems to be so different from others.
>
> As i said before, it did't work for us eithdr with versions prior
> to 3.0.2. With 2.6.9 we had all the problems that have been
> described so many times. Core dumps, high memory utilization,
> etc. Basically, it didn't work.
I have been using 3.0.x (now 3.0.7) for a couple of years now and most
people on the list have also been using a version of 3.0.x since it
has been released 3 years ago. So, while 2.x had other memory issues,
I don't think that explains why you are seeing lightning fast speeds
while all of the rest of us are unable to get anything but very small
BackupPC archives to rsync in a reasonable amount of time if at all.
>
> I've been following this list for a long time, even though i did never wrote
> a mail to it until now, but i've read all the problems people were having to
> replicate the pool.
>
> I even remember someone said that by installing backuppc on nexenta or open
> solaris he'd been able to use built in zfs block level rsync like funtions
> to sync the pool to another zfs based network machine.
>
> But all that was before rsync 3.0.2 which actually worked for us.
I don't know - that has not been the common experience. If it were as
simple as an upgrade to 3.0.x, surely the mailing list wouldn't still
be filled with issues.
>
> We even had 2 drives to cycle them every morning.
>
> The most demanded resource on the machine during the sync process
> was CPU. I don't have access to that machine and data anymore, as I
> said, but I'm sure that most of you have the knowledge to do it
> with your installation and a recent rsync version.
>
> Could you please try it and confirm that? It will depend greatly on
> the machine you are using, ours was a 4 core Xeon with 4 gb of ram
> and 2 SATA HDs on a software RAID-1. When rsyncing the pool,
> BackupPC was stopped obviously and no other unneeded daemons or
> programs where running.
I have a much slower machine with only 2.5GB RAM. But again CPU has
not been my issue. Perhaps others could try to replicate your results
but again I haven't heard anyone having close to your reported experience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
A question and answer guide to determining the best fit
for your organization - today and in the future.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
|
