On Thursday 30 April 2009 18:29:20 Kevin Keane wrote:
> Silver Salonen wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > As keeping multiple full backups of the whole data is a very expensive
task, I
> > think it's wise to minimize the size of full backups. The simple idea for
> > doing that is to separate files/folders into "active" and "inactive" ones.
> > Active files/folders would then get backed up into multiple full volumes,
but
> > inactive files would be held in one copy only, eg. by doing only
incremental
> > backups. If the amounts are smth like 1TB for active files and 2TB for
> > inactive files, the save would be noticeable (2TB times the number of full
> > backups) :)
> >
> > The question about Bacula is that is there any way for achieving this
without
> > scripting filesets? Currently I've done it with simple find-script, but
lately
> > I tried it on a server having about 1TB of data - when I let the script to
> > exclude every old file from the fileset, the incremental job would last
about
> > 16 hours, even though the backup itself was only 1GB. I guess it's because
the
> > enormous amount of old files.
> >
> Is it the script itself that runs that long, or does bacula take that
> long to process the output from the script?
>
> If it is the script itself: maybe you can cache the results of the
> script in some form? Have the script generate a text file, and the next
> time it runs, read it back in. Or run the script as a cron job
> independent of bacula store the output in a file, and then use that.
>
> If it is bacula itself that takes that long, then you need to find a
> better way to exclude these files.
>
> Is there a way you can move the inactive files into a different
> directory tree? If not: think about creating a completely separate
> directory for current files. Create links (hard or soft - hard links are
> probably better here) from that directory to the original current files.
> Exclude the full original data directory from the backup, and back up
> only this "shadow".
It was Bacula that just kept thinking about smth for 10 hours and then finally
finished the job. The script itself ran within minutes.
But I thought of the other-way approach when writing the original e-mail -
what if I only include new files, not exclude old files? And when I ran a job
with such a fileset, it took only minutes. I'll test this approach and see
whether everything is correct etc.
--
Silver
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Register Now & Save for Velocity, the Web Performance & Operations
Conference from O'Reilly Media. Velocity features a full day of
expert-led, hands-on workshops and two days of sessions from industry
leaders in dedicated Performance & Operations tracks. Use code vel09scf
and Save an extra 15% before 5/3. http://p.sf.net/sfu/velocityconf
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
|
