Discuss January 2010

discuss@lists.centos.org

296 participants
322 discussions

Problem with checkinstall
by Bob McConnell 14 Jan '10

14 Jan '10

I installed checkinstall 1.6.2 on CentOS 5.4 VM (VMWare Server on WinXP). After getting the dependencies installed it compiled with no errors. But when I run it in its own source directory, I keep getting an error that I can't track down. The message is: install: cannot change ownership of '/usr/local/lib/installwatch.so': No such file or directory. But not only does the file exist, it has the correct permissions and creation time. I am running this as root. I did change the permissions on both make and install to 0755, but that did not help. The command line is: checkinstall -R --install=no Any suggestions? Bob McConnell N2SPP

2 2

Re: [CentOS] Backup server
by Les Mikesell 14 Jan '10

14 Jan '10

Sorin Srbu wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf >> Of Benjamin Franz >> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 2:12 PM >> To: CentOS mailing list >> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Backup server >> >> If you have any budget at all, invest in bigger drives. 7200 RPM 1 TB >> RAID rated drives can be bought for $160 each. Desktop rated 5900 RPM >> 1.5 TB drives (which you can probably get away with in a dedicated >> backup server since you don't care a lot about speed and can tolerate >> long pauses for sector repair) can be bought for $110 each. Check Newegg. > > I haven't got a budget really. Today I asked for a new group-printer today and > the boss looked pained... 8-} SATA disks fit into 'office supply' budgets. > I opted for the proven 500GB-sized disks and got more of those instead. I've > had a handful of 750GB-drives die on me recently. Go to the vendor's web site, enter their serial numbers and get an RMA for a free replacement. Every vendor has had bad batches. > Somehow it feels the > technology isn't quite there yet for the bigger drive-sizes. Anybody remember > the IBM Deskstars in the early 00's...? They replace them too, within the warranty period. This is the reason you are making backups, remember. Things break. > Also, my experience is the more smaller disks you have, the faster they get. > Less to write to each I guess. That's true when the heads seek independently. With raid5 you lock onto the slowest of the set unless you have a very large number of drives. >> Second, to maximize 'depth' of backups you should use a 'Tower of >> Hanoi'-like backup system. > > Good advice, thanks! Backuppc will take care of that for you. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

2 1

Re: [CentOS] Backup server
by Benjamin Franz 14 Jan '10

14 Jan '10

Sorin Srbu wrote: > Today I have five 500GB-disks raided on linux machine. Remove one for > parity > and I have 2TB of real space available. Doing a 0+1, ie 1TB, would indeed be > better as performance goes, but 1TB of space, well, it just isn't enough > unfortunately. > > As it is now, the 2TB shebang is mounted as /backup. Does that count as a > single filesystem? If you have any budget at all, invest in bigger drives. 7200 RPM 1 TB RAID rated drives can be bought for $160 each. Desktop rated 5900 RPM 1.5 TB drives (which you can probably get away with in a dedicated backup server since you don't care a lot about speed and can tolerate long pauses for sector repair) can be bought for $110 each. Check Newegg. Second, to maximize 'depth' of backups you should use a 'Tower of Hanoi'-like backup system. For example: 1 day 2 days 4 days 8 days 16 days etc If your selected backup software supports either hardlinking or plain old incremental backups that will keep the size of backups down a lot while giving you history. -- Benjamin Franz

2 1

more kickstart - saving %pre decisions for %post
by Alan McKay 14 Jan '10

14 Jan '10

Hey again folks, How can I save answers to questions in %pre, for use in %post? I'm assuming (though have not yet tried) that variables won't live that long. Could I save them off to /tmp in a file, and retrieve them? e.g. %pre echo "VARNAME=$VARNAME" >> /tmp/varfile %post grep ^VARNAME= /tmp/varile Or some such ... -- “Don't eat anything you've ever seen advertised on TV” - Michael Pollan, author of "In Defense of Food"

4 16

Re: [CentOS] Backup server
by John Doe 14 Jan '10

14 Jan '10

From: Sorin Srbu <sorin.srbu(a)orgfarm.uu.se> > My google searches would have me believe that Amanda is the more popular > choice for backup on linux. On this list it seems Backuppc is. Strange... amanda was created in 1991... BackupPC in 2001. That would explain it a bit... Also if tapes are the backup media, which was mainly the case a 'few' years ago (still?), Backuppc won't be an option afaik... JD

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Backup server
by Les Mikesell 14 Jan '10

14 Jan '10

Sorin Srbu wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On > Behalf >> Of Barry Brimer >> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:15 PM >> To: CentOS mailing list >> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Backup server >> >> I use rsnapshot .. which manages sets of rsync backups using hardlinks. >> IT may be similar to what you are using already .. > > Somewhat similar, thanks. I think however I need to get away from this sort > of backups. They're just to space-consuming. Between compression and pooling, I get about 10x the raw data being archived with backuppc - it beats juggling tapes and you can let the users access the backups of their own machine through a web interface. There are some down sides to plan around though: the compression takes some CPU and is slower than a stock rsync run, and the pooling is done with hardlinks which forces the archive to be on a single filesystem and makes it hard to duplicate for offsite copies. There's an RPM in epel that is easy to install on Centos. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

6 9

Re: [CentOS] Backup server
by Les Mikesell 14 Jan '10

14 Jan '10

On 1/13/2010 8:51 AM, Sorin Srbu wrote: > >> >> Between compression and pooling, I get about 10x the raw data being archived >> with backuppc - it beats juggling tapes and you can let the users access the >> backups of their own machine through a web interface. There are some down >> sides >> to plan around though: the compression takes some CPU and is slower than a >> stock >> rsync run, and the pooling is done with hardlinks which forces the archive to >> be >> on a single filesystem and makes it hard to duplicate for offsite copies. >> There's an RPM in epel that is easy to install on Centos. > > Sound very interesting indeed! > > I don't think the performance will be a problem, the server's a calculation > machine that has now been scrapped running a dual-xeon@2,something GHz and > some 4GB RAM IIRC. Do you think the software-raid5 array used, would be a > problem in this case? > > I've never had any problems with software raid5 in linux before, but you never > know... There's a big write performance hit from raid5 (software or not). It may not be enough to be a showstopper but I wouldn't recommend it. Can you reconfigure to a 0+1 or some other type that has better performance without losing too much space? The archive does have to be on a single filesystem, though, and if you use the epel RPM it makes things easier if you mount the volume at /var/lib/BackupPC before the install. See 'how to change archive directory' from: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/backuppc/index.php?title=Tips_and_Tri… to do it after the install. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

2 1

Re: [CentOS] Backup server
by Gabriel Rosca 14 Jan '10

14 Jan '10

I like better Bacula ... Personal I have Bacula ... configure to backup mac, windows, and linux servers ... Gabe -----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Sorin Srbu Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 9:53 AM To: 'CentOS mailing list' Subject: Re: [CentOS] Backup server >-----Original Message----- >From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf >Of Alan McKay >Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:01 PM >To: CentOS mailing list >Subject: Re: [CentOS] Backup server > >BackupPC over here - very happy with it for Linux and Windoze, at home >and work My google searches would have me believe that Amanda is the more popular choice for backup on linux. On this list it seems Backuppc is. Strange... ;-) -- /Sorin

4 4

Re: [CentOS] Backup server
by Max Hetrick 14 Jan '10

14 Jan '10

Sorin Srbu wrote: > Sound very interesting indeed! > > I don't think the performance will be a problem, the server's a calculation > machine that has now been scrapped running a dual-xeon@2,something GHz and > some 4GB RAM IIRC. Do you think the software-raid5 array used, would be a > problem in this case? > > I've never had any problems with software raid5 in linux before, but you never > know... The reason I really like BackupPC is the compression you can get. It really helps me out since I have a smaller dedicated backup server. For my instance, since I have a dedicated server, I'd trade performance for the space compression saves me. Regards, Max

2 1

Re: [CentOS] Backup server
by Brian Mathis 14 Jan '10

14 Jan '10

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Sorin Srbu <sorin.srbu(a)orgfarm.uu.se> wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On > Behalf >>Of Barry Brimer >>Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:15 PM >>To: CentOS mailing list >>Subject: Re: [CentOS] Backup server >> >>I use rsnapshot .. which manages sets of rsync backups using hardlinks. >>IT may be similar to what you are using already .. > > Somewhat similar, thanks. I think however I need to get away from this sort > of backups. They're just to space-consuming. > -- > /Sorin Do you currently need that disk space for something else? If not, then there is no reason to get rid of the old files. An empty disk is a wasted disk, so you would be creating free space on a perfectly good disk that you already paid for. Having blank space gains you nothing, but deleting a file that you could need in 6 months might cost you. Pick a percentage of the disk that you are comfortable using for backups, and then let the backups grow to that size. Only when you reach that size or need the space for something with a higher priority should you worry about recovering the space.

2 1

← Newer
1
...
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
...
33
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss January 2010