Les Mikesell wrote:
> Saturn2888 wrote:
>
> >
> > I actually do have DDNS setup, but it's based on my DHCP server and that
> > doesn't tell it, if the machine connected on Wi-Fi, to prioritize the DNS
> > name hostname.local to 192.168.0.12 instead of 192.168.0.13. The easiest
> > way to do any of this, especially with a machine that isn't allowing the
> > pinging of machines by windows hostnames, is to do it by IP address. The
> > DHCP method in BackupPC counts from the bottom up. If the Wi-Fi card is
> > setup as a lower IP, then it will be pulled first also not solving the
> > issue.
> >
> > The main thing here is, there should be some way of solving this problem in
> > BackupPC, not creating other problems with having to setup local DDNS
> > servers on in upwards of 20 machines or more and then having to tell people
> > to turn off the wireless cards when they plug in. It'd be so much easier
> > just to say "ClientAlias {} take an array" just like how file/directory
> > excludes work.
> >
>
> I think it is an unusual setup that causes the problem - and it is a general
> networking problem, not at all related to backuppc. And I'm not actually
> sure
> that connecting to a specific IP would help if the other connections are
> available and still have viable routes on the target host. Ip routes are
> asymmetrical and the host makes its own decision about the return path. I'm
> not
> sure if backuppc will try multiple IP addresses if they are returned by DNS
> for
> a name and the first choice doesn't work. Browsers typically do that and it
> works out well. That could fix the case of a machine alternating between
> wired/wireless if both are in DNS - but not multiple connections with
> different
> speeds/reliability at the same time.
>
>
>
> > Most of what you said isn't a solution, it's yet another problem. If you
> > thought it'd be better to talk to the Bacula client,
> >
>
> I mentioned the bacula client as an alternative to your suggestion of
> reviving
> the backuppc client - at the moment, neither is usable, but I thought you
> were
> talking about future development.
>
>
> > then why is SSH-port forwarding the best option?
> >
>
> Because it works now and offers the compression option you said you wanted.
>
>
> > If BackupPC already knows how to talk through SSH pub/priv key, then why
> > doesn't it just allow that for Rsyncd as well?
> >
>
> Normally if you want to use ssh, you'd use rsync instead of rsyncd - and I'd
> expect that to be almost universal for non-windows targets. But there has
> been
> a bug in the cygwin ssh/rsync combination in the past that would cause random
> hangs. It may or may not be fixed in the current version. So
> port-forwarding
> over ssh to get encryption/compression or to start the connection from the
> other
> end to meet firewall requirements are special cases that work if you have to
> deal with certain issues - or have windows and a somewhat broken ssh/rsync.
>
>
> > One of the biggest things on the configuration side of things is having a
> > global config and then having to modify that on a per-machine basis rather
> > than having configuration profiles or a way to have a global config and
> > then have a machine config underneath it which allows even more
> > modification. I'd rather see a method of adding functionality for easier
> > management of multiple machines which are similar Linux vs Windows rather
> > than seeing "make global for Linux and go by hand and change all the
> > Windows machines, but if you make a change to the global config and want
> > that reflected in the Windows machines too, there's no way to do that other
> > than doing it by hand". See what I mean? One solves the problem the other
> > does nothing but create more headache and doesn't solve the problem.
> >
>
> I'd like to see another 'group' level of inheritance, but I don't see a big
> problem with the way things currently work since you can create one per-host
> instance with everything the way you will want for a group, then copy it with
> the NEWHOST=COPYHOST syntax in the web 'edit hosts' screen. It only becomes
> an
> issue if you want to change an existing setting across an existing group of
> similar machines.
>
> --
> Les Mikesell
> lesmikesell < at > gmail.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> _______________________________________________
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> BackupPC-users < at > lists.sourceforge.net
> List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
The Bacula client would be a great idea. That I was fine with so long as there
was something. Yes, I was talking about a new version, sorry for the confusion.
The DHCP stuff I was saying is an issue with DNS itself. You can only have one
IP per DNS entry, but you can have multiple DNS entries for that same IP. What
you're proposing is that I install some kind of DDNS system into my server and
all by clients where they'll change the DNS name based on which interface is
enabled would be counter to what I'm trying to accomplish. I've spoken with a
former dev of BackupPC and he suggested an array of possibly IP values would
fix it. Building upon that would be weights or priorities so each IP has some
sort of rank and the lower the rank, the more important it would be to use that
IP if it's pingable.
Ah ok, I don't remember the SSH port-forwarding being in the documentation. is
there a link somewhere? I've been running things through a VPN at the moment,
but I don't know which method would be faster.
Yeah, I've used that copy a lot, but it's not perfect. I'm wondering if I could
do OLDHOST (without Rsyncd user/pass changing) = OTHEROLDHOST = ANOTHEROLDHOST
= COPYHOST so you can change more than one very quickly.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by Saturn2888 AT gmail DOT com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to abuse AT backupcentral DOT com.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________
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/
|
