| Andrew Libby on 24 Aug 2016 09:16:03 -0700 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [PLUG] epiphany or stupidity? |
If you're going to consider backuppc, there are some things I've experienced along the way that were problematic. * At one point at least there were path limitations in btrfs, IIRC. For that reason we stuck with ext4. * rsync, the usual choice for underlying transport has a small fixed size ram overhead per file. All of the file data is loaded into memory for hard-link deduplication at the client (reduces network i/o). If you've got a system that has many many small files, you'll need more ram on your backuppc server, and possibly the client. On mail servers using maildir this became an issue for us. Andy On 8/24/16 12:03 PM, john boris wrote: > Jason, > BackupPC does this out of the box. As long as the systems are at the > same patch level and same software. I have never tested it but that is > one of the features it touts. > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Michael Leone <turgon@mike-leone.com > <mailto:turgon@mike-leone.com>> wrote: > > The concept is called deduplication; lots of backup programs support > it. My DataDomains get over 90% space savings that way. > > As for SANs, that's also how our new Dell XtremIO SAN can use 20TB to > take over for our older VNX with 80TB (they tell me; we haven't > finished installing it yet, much less migrated). > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Tone Montone > <tonemontone@gmail.com <mailto:tonemontone@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I was running last night, and for some reason, I had an idea about > backups. > > It occurred to me that if I had 100 Red Hat systems, all running > the same OS > > and Patch level, would I need full backups on all the systems. > Wouldn't > > there be static information like executables that would be the > same across > > all systems? So instead of doing fulls x 100, I could do a full x > 1, then > > just differentials or incrementals on the others, thereby reducing > total > > storage required on tapes. > > > > Then I thought if I took the same idea and applied it to the SAN > storage, > > could I have fixed images that the systems run on, and only require 1 > > instance of it, thereby reducing total storage space requirements. > > > > Then I thought, either this is a really stupid idea, or it's > brilliant and > > most likely already done. > > > > Comments? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mike > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- > http://www.phillylinux.org > > Announcements - > http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce > <http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce> > > General Discussion -- > http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > <http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug> > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- > http://www.phillylinux.org > Announcements - > http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce > <http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce> > General Discussion -- > http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > <http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug> > > > > > -- > John J. Boris, Sr. > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org > Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce > General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug