Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BackupPC\-users\]\s+Correct\s+rsync\s+parameters\s+for\s+doing\s+incremental\s+transfers\s+of\s+large\s+image\-files\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BackupPC\-users\]\s+Correct\s+rsync\s+parameters\s+for\s+doing\s+incremental\s+transfers\s+of\s+large\s+image\-files\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [BackupPC-users] Correct rsync parameters for doing incremental transfers of large image-files (score: 1): Author: Andreas Piening <andreas.piening AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 23:01:33 +0200; Hello Backuppc-users, I stuck while trying to identify the suitable rsync parameters to handle large image file backups with backuppc. Following scenario: I use partimage to do LVM-snapshot based ful; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-05/msg00037.html (16,228 bytes)
2. Re: [BackupPC-users] Correct rsync parameters for doing incremental transfers of large image-files (score: 1): Author: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 23:04:22 -0500; I'm not sure there is a good way to handle very large files in backuppc. Even if rysnc identifies and transfers only the changes, the server is going to copy and merge the unchanged parts from the pr; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-05/msg00040.html (17,747 bytes)
3. Re: [BackupPC-users] Correct rsync parameters for doing incremental transfers of large image-files (score: 1): Author: Andreas Piening <andreas.piening AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 12:57:07 +0200; Hi Les, I allready thought about that and I agree that the handling of large image files is problematic in general. I need to make images for the windows-based virtual machines to get them back runni; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-05/msg00041.html (20,716 bytes)
4. Re: [BackupPC-users] Correct rsync parameters for doing incremental transfers of large image-files (score: 1): Author: Tim Fletcher <tim AT night-shade.org DOT uk>; Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 14:28:53 +0100; The real question is what are you trying to do, do you want a backup (ie another single copy of a recent version of the image file) or an archive (ie a series of daily or weekly snapshots of the imag; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-05/msg00042.html (17,107 bytes)
5. Re: [BackupPC-users] Correct rsync parameters for doing incremental transfers of large image-files (score: 1): Author: Andreas Piening <andreas.piening AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 16:17:48 +0200; I want a backup that gives me the opportunity to get the server back and running within a few minutes + download time of the image + restore time from partimage. It is ok to loose the files created s; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-05/msg00043.html (19,792 bytes)
6. Re: [BackupPC-users] Correct rsync parameters for doing incremental transfers of large image-files (score: 1): Author: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 09:57:39 -0500; If you need close to real-time recovery, you need to have some sort of live clustering with failover. Just copying the images around will take hours. For the less critical things, I normally keep a '; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-05/msg00044.html (15,692 bytes)
7. Re: [BackupPC-users] Correct rsync parameters for doing incremental transfers of large image-files (score: 1): Author: Andreas Piening <andreas.piening AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 23:04:21 +0200; Hi Les, excuse my floppy frase: Real time recovery is not what I'm looking for. I ment I want to be able to get the system into a workable state simply by downloading and restoring from an image. If; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-05/msg00047.html (18,101 bytes)
8. Re: [BackupPC-users] Correct rsync parameters for doing incremental transfers of large image-files (score: 1): Author: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 22:32:06 -0500; I don't put the images (clonezilla or VM files) into backuppc at all. The copies just work as they usually do. And once they are running, you just have the same process you would have if someone dele; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-05/msg00049.html (17,040 bytes)
9. Re: [BackupPC-users] Correct rsync parameters for doing incremental transfers of large image-files (score: 1): Author: Andreas Piening <andreas.piening AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 00:20:46 +0200; Hi Les, using a outdated image for restoring and "manually" copying things over is not an option for me. The Server is a domain-controller with several profiles, running two databases and have propri; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-05/msg00059.html (19,542 bytes)
10. Re: [BackupPC-users] Correct rsync parameters for doing incremental transfers of large image-files (score: 1): Author: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 17:53:47 -0500; Can you park another drive nearby - preferably on a different machine but not absolutely necessary? Then script a local copy during your backup window and dribble the offsite copy out after it comple; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-05/msg00060.html (16,133 bytes)
11. Re: [BackupPC-users] Correct rsync parameters for doing incremental transfers of large image-files (score: 1): Author: Andreas Piening <andreas.piening AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 01:34:29 +0200; There are already two USB-disks that are swapped every few days and I copy nightly images on the currently connected drive. Some weeks ago, the office had a water-pipe break. The water has been stopp; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-05/msg00061.html (18,486 bytes)
12. Re: [BackupPC-users] Correct rsync parameters for doing incremental transfers of large image-files (score: 1): Author: Adam Goryachev <mailinglists AT websitemanagers.com DOT au>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:27:16 +1000; Currently, I handle the situation as follows: 1) File level backup with backuppc, this covers the non-disaster/disaster scenario where somebody inadvertently trashes your database, or deletes a "impo; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-05/msg00062.html (19,203 bytes)
13. Re: [BackupPC-users] Correct rsync parameters for doing incremental transfers of large image-files (score: 1): Author: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:46:44 -0500; My point was that if you snapshot locally, then remotely back up the snapshot you can have a much longer time to complete the copy - and you have the option to spit it into small pieces. You still do; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-05/msg00063.html (16,365 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]