On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 10:48 AM, <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > > >> I'm not quite at that scale in a single instance myself, but I'm >> fairly sure many users on the backuppc mail list are, so it is not >> necessarily a problem, although there are some tradeoffs with extra >> overhead for compression and the extra pool hardlink. In any case it >> is trivial to install and test with the package in EPEL. Even if it >> doesn't replace your server backup system you might find it useful to >> point at some workstations or windows boxes (it can use smb as well as >> rsync or tar to gather the files). >> > Heh. We don't do Windows. That's desktop support.... (As a side note, I > work for a federal contractor at a non-defense site, so scale is, um, > larger than many.) The scaling side of things just trades a little more CPU for compression and rsync-in-perl in return for vastly less disk consumption so it's not a sure bet either way in that respect. I think you've mentioned some subsequent off-line archiving scheme for your data sets that wouldn't mesh very well, though. But, everyone has lots of other stuff where backups would be nice to have and backuppc makes it trivial to have, say, daily copies of all of /etc from all machines going back months - or your own home directory. And it doesn't blow up if you point it at a bunch of home directories where developers have checked out copies of the same big source trees. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com