Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote at about 11:38:30 -0400 on Wednesday, June 10, 2009:
 > Les Mikesell wrote at about 10:23:10 -0500 on Wednesday, June 10, 2009:
 >  > John Rouillard wrote:
 >  > > On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 10:16:33PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
 >  > >> I don't know how common this usage is, but in our setup we have a lot 
 > of
 >  > >> backuppc "hosts" that are physically located on a few machines only. It
 >  > >> would be nice if it were possible to allow hosts on different machines 
 > to
 >  > >> be backupped simultaneously, but prevent simultaneous backups(dumps) of
 >  > >> hosts on the same machine.
 >  > >>
 >  > >> Any thoughts?
 >  > > 
 >  > > If you have a way of mapping the host names to a physical machine, you
 >  > > can use my queing/locking strategy described in:
 >  > > 
 >  > > 
 >  > >   http://www.mail-archive.com/backuppc-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT 
 > net/msg13698.html
 >  > > 
 >  > > Create one queue/semaphore per physical machine and have the
 >  > > $Conf{DumpPreUserCmd} command exit with an error if it can't get a
 >  > > slot/lock (also you will have to set $Conf{UserCmdCheckStatus} = 1;).
 >  > 
 >  > As a feature request, I think it would be nice to have a way to add 
 >  > hosts to groups, then limit how many in each group the scheduler would 
 >  > start at once.  There are several scenarios where this is needed to 
 >  > avoid overloading some common reasource - like a low-bandwidth link as 
 >  > well as sharing a physical host or filesystem.
 >  > 
 > 
 > I think the notion of host groups is a good idea. Even more generally,
 > it would be nice to be able to define config files at the group level
 > rather than the current choice between the default config.pl file and
 > host-specific config files.
 > 
 > For example, this would allow one to define a config file for Linux
 > vs. Windows machines or for desktops vs. notebooks or for critical
 > machines vs. less critical machines (I know you can currently do this
 > in a kludgey fashion using links or by adding perl code to the config
 > file but it would be nice to have a better way to do it).
 > 
 > This generalization of host groups could easily include the notion of
 > maximum simultaneous group backups to run.
 > 

It would also be nice to use the group notion to allow the ability to
specify a different topdir for different groups. This could be useful
in cases where there is not much overlap (i.e. pooling potential)
between groups and where there might be reasons to split the pool
between drives. This would presumably be better than the kludge recently
discussed on this list of running multiple instances of backuppc on
one server.

It would further be beneficial to carry the group distinction to the
web interface so that you could view results by group which could be
helpful if you have *many* machines or if you want to subtotal various
stats by group.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial
Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited
royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing 
server and web deployment.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects
_______________________________________________
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/