Author: "Boniforti Flavio" <flavio AT piramide DOT ch>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 08:39:39 +0200
Hello people, I hope developers will read this and take it into account if possible: I am not used to consider minutes in decimal format (like 36.8 minutes). Would it be possible to convert that data
Author: Bharat Mistry <basmistry AT googlemail DOT com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 15:57:57 +0100
and 31.21 GB instead of 31214312331231 bytes!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ability to email a list of files backed up per host "wood" me kool too..... I know, I know...... On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Bonifo
Author: Holger Parplies <wbppc AT parplies DOT de>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 21:18:54 +0200
Hi, Bharat Mistry wrote on 2009-05-15 15:57:57 +0100 [Re: [BackupPC-users] [SUGGESTION] "Duration/mins" not in decimal format]: ("." instead of "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", too? :) thank you for making this poi
Author: Bharat Mistry <basmistry AT googlemail DOT com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 22:48:26 +0100
Actually, comment from a couple of USERS... you know the people who all this stuff is for One of my users asked for some help with setup - He wanted to be familiar with the system for day-to-day o
Author: "Jeffrey J. Kosowsky" <backuppc AT kosowsky DOT org>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 18:31:09 -0400
I agree totally with Holger. It is much easier to convert raw data to less precise and/or more humanly readable formats than vica-versa. Plus, the data is usually something you only look at when trou
Author: Adam Goryachev <mailinglists AT websitemanagers.com DOT au>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 10:06:54 +1000
Exactly, perhaps the a better (but more work involved) solution would be to create a new page which shows a nice pretty graph of the various numbers instead of stacks of numbers in great big tables..
Author: "Boniforti Flavio" <flavio AT piramide DOT ch>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 14:26:54 +0200
It's simply about "human format": humans do not speak about 36.8 minutes. But as you also pointed out: if I'd cut the seconds, nothing would change in such an important way: 36.8 or 36 is the same t
Author: "Boniforti Flavio" <flavio AT piramide DOT ch>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 14:28:53 +0200
Of course would I be doing this, once I have the technical skills to achieve my goals. At this point in time, where I'm not enough skilled for creating a "customized" web page for my view, I'm just
Author: "Boniforti Flavio" <flavio AT piramide DOT ch>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 14:30:59 +0200
Well, if somebody is willing to cooperate with me to do it, I'll be willing to learn and contribute. A *very nice* add-on would be having graphs for each host, not only for the whole pool. I'd reall
Author: Les Mikesell <les AT futuresource DOT com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 08:10:47 -0500
I guess you could track the transfer times and sizes for each host/share, but there is a philosophical/practical issue in tracking the storage space since it is pooled and there is no handy way to te
Author: Les Mikesell <les AT futuresource DOT com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 08:15:33 -0500
_Except_ when they are trying to compare different amounts of time, when the discrete jumps in days/hours/minutes/seconds become inconvenient to normal math operations. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell AT
Author: "Boniforti Flavio" <flavio AT piramide DOT ch>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:35:54 +0200
Yes, I was indeed thinking about the same thing too: because of "pooling" it's somehow unprecise defining the effective space used. Therefore I will be assuming that the data showing in the "Host Su
Author: Adam Goryachev <mailinglists AT websitemanagers.com DOT au>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 00:21:47 +1000
Consider that from a cost perspective, it is imprecise to charge internet usage (ie downloads) which includes data downloaded from the proxy server, since that data may (or may not) have been downloa
Author: "Boniforti Flavio" <flavio AT piramide DOT ch>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 16:55:24 +0200
Indeed, that's what I want to know: the really transferred bytes for that host-to-host connection (from the remote host to my backuppc server). Nothing concerning the backuppc pool... Well, if I'd a
Author: Adam Goryachev <mailinglists AT websitemanagers.com DOT au>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 01:34:35 +1000
Also, when using rsyncd, although the file is different, the entire file may not have been transferred. ie, a 100MB file might only transfer 5MB which was modified from yesterday's backup.... In addi
Author: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 11:14:56 -0500
I don't know about the accuracy of the numbers, but I always assumed that the duration (*60)times the MB/sec for the same backup run would give me the bytes transferred. But if you are looking for bo
Author: Boniforti Flavio <flavio AT piramide DOT ch>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 22:14:50 +0200
Il 18.05.09 17:34, "Adam Goryachev" <mailinglists AT websitemanagers.com DOT scritto: You are quite right... I didn't want to put that stuff in our thread, but it *has* to be mentioned that rsync + s
Author: Boniforti Flavio <flavio AT piramide DOT ch>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 22:16:20 +0200
Il 18.05.09 18:14, "Les Mikesell" <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com> ha scritto: And that's my case :-/ Do you also think that the best approach is the iptables one? -- Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime
Author: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:38:07 -0500
I think the best approach is to have enough bandwidth that you don't need to worry about it - or at least can get by with tracking it at the interface or switch port level with an snmp tool like cact
Author: Holger Parplies <wbppc AT parplies DOT de>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 00:30:11 +0200
Hi, Boniforti Flavio wrote on 2009-05-18 22:14:50 +0200 [Re: [BackupPC-users] [SUGGESTION] "Duration/mins" not in decimal format]: the question I believe should have been asked long ago is: What prob