dan wrote:
> Speed.  Backuppc is constrained by I/O performance as a bottleneck on 
> the system is that the storage volume must be a single filesystem due to 
> hardlinks.  

Then use a better filesystem.  I run BackupPC on an opensolaris system 
that uses ZFS as the storage pool, and I/O is the *last* of my worries 
(since the box is an older machine with only a single processor, CPU 
usage is my main worry as File::RsyncP is not as efficient as binary rsync).

> that I/O is the major bottleneck for backuppc.  Getting faster hardware 
> certainly helps but the reliance on a single filesystem for all data is 
> a bottleneck for performance as well as an irritation when upgrading 
> storage as you either need to add additional raid arrays (as expanding a 
> raid is not generally an option) or just use JBOD with LVM or 
> something.   

Like I said, use a more appropriate filesystem.  Use ZFS, JFS, or XFS 
(or Reiser) but not ext2/3 as those as jokes when it comes to performance.

> My solution is to break the backup scheme into smaller chunks and have a 
> number of backuppc servers handling a set number of clients.  The issues 
> here are complexity as I need to admin a number of servers and loss of 
> the file de-duping.   In my organization like many others, each client 
> will have absolutely identical files.  4 backup machines means that a 
> massive amount of data is duplicated 4 times PLUS whatever redundancy is 
> in the raid.

Keep in mind that BackupPC has a limited scope -- small to medium-sized 
organizations.  If you have over 100 clients to back up, it is expected 
that you will run multiple BackupPC servers.  If you have more than 500+ 
clients to back up, it is expected that you will invest in a commercial 
solution designed for that kind of enterprise.

> Other benefits of the hybrid system are that the files can be on a 
> different volumes than the database.  In fact, because you store the 
> files location on disk in the database, you could store files on many 
> different disks, with to issues with hardlinks.

If this is your point, then it's somewhat valid in that you are arguing 
for a system where the storage is modular.  There's nothing wrong with 
that, but that's not the scope of BackupPC.  BackupPC's core strength, 
one that no other opensource backup solution has, is pooling of like 
data, and that is the reason I've implemented it.  If you want a system 
where the back-end storage is modular, choose Amanda or Bacula.
-- 
Jim Leonard (trixter AT oldskool DOT org)            http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project:           http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at     http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
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/