On 7/18/2011 12:56 PM, Isterklister wrote:
> Thanks. Do I understand you correctly that you mean that I should copy the 
> files to the backup server using rsync until everything is ready, and then 
> point to the katalogeln with backuppc?

Yes - at least that approach should work if local (to the server) disk 
space is easier to arrange than better network access.  The copy doesn't 
have to be on the backup server itself, just on a machine on its side of 
the bad network link.  Using stock rsync will be faster, you can use the 
-z option for compression, and you don't have the forced --ignore-times 
that you get with backuppc fulls.  And you can repeat it as 
often/frequently as needed to complete.

> Would it not be hard to recover the files to the client throug the web 
> interface? (it is in itself not the most important)

That's going to be hard in any case if you can't count on the network to 
stay connected.   You can make it look somewhat like the real target if 
you use a ClientNameAlias to connect it to the copy.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storage Efficiency Calculator
This modeling tool is based on patent-pending intellectual property that
has been used successfully in hundreds of IBM storage optimization engage-
ments, worldwide.  Store less, Store more with what you own, Move data to 
the right place. Try It Now! http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51427378/
_______________________________________________
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/