Rob Owens wrote: > Kevin DeGraaf wrote: >> 2. Use the remote server to hold a copy of the on-site BackupPC >> server's file pool. The pool would be rsync'ed on-site initially and >> then rsync'ed remotely from then on. >> > Against all advice on this list, I did this yesterday. I rsync'd my > pool to a larger drive in the same machine. My pool size is 347G and > it's been running for the past 15 hours or so. I've transfered 334G so > far. My server has 3GB of RAM. It hasn't crashed, like many people > thought it might, and it has only used 2MB of swap. > > -Rob
I never asked for anyone's opinion before trying this myself, but I have been [apparently] successfully rsyncing a copy of my BackupPC pool remotely over a DSL line for months now. I have yet to encounter issues, other than a few rsync warnings when the pool changes during the rsync -- which does take a few hours at DSL's 800 kbps uplink. The pool is about 120 GB, and changes by about 1 GB each day. I did my initial "remote" disk setup a bit differently. Instead of rsyncing the pool, I populated my "remote" drive by mounting it locally on the BackupPC server and doing a cp -a. No issues with that of course. Then I took the drive out of the BackupPC server and stuck it in the remote machine. From that point on rsync with the -H option has been keeping the pools in sync. Can anyone explain why this is a bad idea? Jeff ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list [email protected] List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
