Sorin Srbu wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@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.
BackupPC over here - very happy with it for Linux and Windoze, at home and work
Alan McKay wrote:
BackupPC over here - very happy with it for Linux and Windoze, at home and work
I too have found BackupPC a marvelously simple-to-use program.
In fact it seems to me much better for backing up Windows XP than Windows own Backup program, which I have never completely understood. Eg how exactly does one recover a lost file or folder with it?
Whereas I have been saved several times in restoring lost material with BackupPC, including the contents of one entire damaged drive.
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@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... ;-)
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Les Mikesell Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:49 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] Backup server
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...
----- Original Message ----
From: Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 2:49:11 PM Subject: Re: [CentOS] Backup server
Sorin Srbu wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@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.
One thing that made me not use BackupPC was that (from the doc): "The advantage of the mod_perl setup is that no setuid script is needed, and there is a huge performance advantage.... The typical speedup is around 15 times. To use mod_perl you need to run Apache as user __BACKUPPCUSER__. If you need to run multiple Apache's for different services then you need to create multiple top-level Apache directories, each with their own config file. You can make copies of /etc/init.d/httpd and use the -d option to httpd to point each http to a different top-level directory. Or you can use the -f option to explicitly point to the config file. Multiple Apache's will run on different Ports (eg: 80 is standard, 8080 is a typical alternative port accessed via http://yourhost.com:8080)."
Since I don't have a dedicated backup server, I did not want to mess up the existing apache configurations...
JD
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On
Behalf
Of John Doe Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 4:04 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] Backup server
[...] If you need to run multiple Apache's for different services then you need to create multiple top-level Apache directories, each with their own config file. You can make copies of /etc/init.d/httpd and use the -d option to httpd to point each http to a different top-level directory. [...]
Since I don't have a dedicated backup server, I did not want to mess up the
existing
apache configurations...
Thank for the heads-up, that was actually quite an essential piece of information. In my case however, that won't be a problem as the server would be a dedicated backup-server with no other services running for the department. It might be at home though. If all this folds out well I'll implement it at home as well.
On 1/13/2010 9:04 AM, John Doe wrote:
One thing that made me not use BackupPC was that (from the doc): "The advantage of the mod_perl setup is that no setuid script is needed, and there is a huge performance advantage.... The typical speedup is around 15 times. To use mod_perl you need to run Apache as user __BACKUPPCUSER__. If you need to run multiple Apache's for different services then you need to create multiple top-level Apache directories, each with their own config file. You can make copies of /etc/init.d/httpd and use the -d option to httpd to point each http to a different top-level directory. Or you can use the -f option to explicitly point to the config file. Multiple Apache's will run on different Ports (eg: 80 is standard, 8080 is a typical alternative port accessed via http://yourhost.com:8080)."
Since I don't have a dedicated backup server, I did not want to mess up the existing apache configurations...
You really don't spend any time in the web interface which is the only thing affected by this. And it is fast enough when run as a normal CGI anyway. Try it without mod_perl. You'd also have the option of running backuppc as apache, but that is less secure if other web admins have access to the machine.
On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 10:03 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 1/13/2010 9:04 AM, John Doe wrote:
One thing that made me not use BackupPC was that (from the doc): "The advantage of the mod_perl setup is that no setuid script is needed, and there is a huge performance advantage.... The typical speedup is around 15 times."
Since I don't have a dedicated backup server, I did not want to mess up the existing apache configurations...
You really don't spend any time in the web interface which is the only thing affected by this. And it is fast enough when run as a normal CGI anyway. Try it without mod_perl. You'd also have the option of running backuppc as apache, but that is less secure if other web admins have access to the machine.
As a side note, the epel BackupPC package does NOT use mod_perl by default and the centos-testing package does use mod_perl by default.
I run the centos-testing package (with mod_perl) and the epel package with and without mod_perl usage and see no practical advantage of using BackupPC with mod_perl in terms of time/cycle usage.
So just use the stock epel package and you don't need to modify apache.
Steve
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On
Behalf
Of S.Tindall Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 8:30 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] Backup server
So just use the stock epel package and you don't need to modify apache.
Thanks!
-
Alan McKay -
John Doe -
Les Mikesell -
S.Tindall -
Sorin Srbu -
Timothy Murphy