SearchFAQMemberlist Log in
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
Backup order
Author Message
Post Backup order 
Is there any way to influence the order PCs get backed up? It seems that if
there are more PCs queued than can be run at a single time, BackupPC does them
alphabetically.

Is there any way to say that this host has a specific backup priority?

Again thanks,
Tony

--
Tony Nelson
Director of IT Operations
Starpoint Solutions LLC
115 Broadway, 2nd Fl
New York, NY 10006





-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g.
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users < at > lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Post Backup order 
From: Tony Nelson <tnelson < at > starpoint.com>
Is there any way to say that this host has a specific backup priority?

Agreed that would be useful.

The obvious sort is by time of last backup. Or last backup plus
length of time the last backup took so we start the longer backups
first.

-Wayne


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g.
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users < at > lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Post Backup order 
Quoting Wayne Scott <wscott < at > bitmover.com>:

From: Tony Nelson <tnelson < at > starpoint.com>
Is there any way to say that this host has a specific backup priority?

Agreed that would be useful.

The obvious sort is by time of last backup. Or last backup plus
length of time the last backup took so we start the longer backups
first.

I really like the idea of sorting them by length of last backup.. that makes all
the sense in the world..

I also think it would be nice to be able to say, no matter what else is going
on, this backup should start at XX:XX ..



-Wayne



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g.
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users < at > lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Post Backup order 
On 05/05 12:11 , Tony Nelson wrote:
I really like the idea of sorting them by length of last backup.. that makes all
the sense in the world..

I also think it would be nice to be able to say, no matter what else is going
on, this backup should start at XX:XX ..

I think these are marvelous suggestions. The lack of these features is
really problematic in Amanda; and while BackupPC doesn't cause nearly as
much trouble (less load, less time -- at least in my environment) as Amanda
backups, it's still worthwhile to be able to schedule stuff precisely.

Carl Soderstrom.
--
Systems Administrator
Real-Time Enterprises
www.real-time.com


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g.
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users < at > lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Post Backup order 
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 11:11, Tony Nelson wrote:

I really like the idea of sorting them by length of last backup.. that makes all
the sense in the world..

I also think it would be nice to be able to say, no matter what else is going
on, this backup should start at XX:XX ..


Another category that would be nice would be to limit concurrency by
network. That is, if you have multiple servers reached across the
same slow WAN link or over the internet you could limit how many
in each set run at once.

---
Les Mikesell
les < at > futuresource.com




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g.
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users < at > lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Post Backup order 
Quoting Les Mikesell <les < at > futuresource.com>:

On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 11:11, Tony Nelson wrote:

I really like the idea of sorting them by length of last backup.. that
makes all
the sense in the world..

I also think it would be nice to be able to say, no matter what else is
going
on, this backup should start at XX:XX ..


Another category that would be nice would be to limit concurrency by
network. That is, if you have multiple servers reached across the
same slow WAN link or over the internet you could limit how many
in each set run at once.


I had thought that a nice way to accomplish this would be to setup multiple
queues.. maybe one per WAN link.. and assign PCs to the various queues..

Each queue could have it's own limit on how many jobs could run at a time.. and
these queues could feed the primary queue which would control the entire
process (max simultaneous jobs, etc)..

I thought about trying to code it, but I just don't have the time right now..
and I'm fairly certain it would be a substantial change.



---
Les Mikesell
les < at > futuresource.com




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g.
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users < at > lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Post Backup order 
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 11:16, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:

I think these are marvelous suggestions. The lack of these features is
really problematic in Amanda; and while BackupPC doesn't cause nearly as
much trouble (less load, less time -- at least in my environment) as Amanda
backups, it's still worthwhile to be able to schedule stuff precisely.

On the other hand, amanda does have the facility to adjust the
scheduling to limit network traffic per network and also
limit concurrency per disk head. If you want to control things
based on time instead of resource limits you can just kick off
a backup with a cron job.

---
Les Mikesell
les < at > futuresource.com




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g.
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users < at > lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Post Backup order 
On 05/05 12:24 , Les Mikesell wrote:
On the other hand, amanda does have the facility to adjust the
scheduling to limit network traffic per network

to a certain extent... it's fairly crude.

and also
limit concurrency per disk head. If you want to control things
based on time instead of resource limits you can just kick off
a backup with a cron job.

sort of... on amanda; if I want a backup to go off at 3am, and all the other
backups to start at 10pm; the one scheduled to go off at 3am will *still*
have its preliminary run (basically a backup to /dev/null, whereby it
determines how much data it will need to back up) go off at 10pm, and crush
that box until it's over.

I've been yelled at a couple of times because of this; and had to keep
explaining that its an inherent limit of amanda's design as it stands.

using rsync from backuppc not only doesn't beat up the individual box as
much; but it also allows per-host blackouts; so the people who work until
2am don't get their workstations clobbered along with everyone else's box in
the middle of the night, and I can do backups of certain machines in the
daytime (machines that primarily get used at night).

Carl Soderstrom.
--
Systems Administrator
Real-Time Enterprises
www.real-time.com


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software
Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to deliver
higher performing products faster, at low TCO.
http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users < at > lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Post Backup order 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tony Nelson wrote:

| I really like the idea of sorting them by length of last backup.. that
makes all
| the sense in the world..

I think there should be a dynamic priority like:

if backup is needed:
priority = (24/AVG_UPTIME_OF_HOST_IN_HOURS_DAILY)*((DATE/LAST_BACKUP)*100)


Hosts which are only available some hours of the date, should have a
higher priority than hosts with higher uptimes.


regards
~ Daniel


- --
nihil me cirumdat

.. . .. ... . . .. . ... . .. . ... . . .
pgp key < at > http://files.poelzi.org/pgp.txt
ED80 E53D 5269 4BB1 1E73 3A53 CBF9 A421 0A7B 003D
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAmTRqy/mkIQp7AD0RArt4AJ42WZZPFCN6gompfJYUUL6pZI4oSQCgvOTA
0ruxBFX1/Oab2bw8MQ7T+Ng=
=8Ztk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software
Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to deliver
higher performing products faster, at low TCO.
http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users < at > lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Post Backup order 
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 13:30, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:

and also
limit concurrency per disk head. If you want to control things
based on time instead of resource limits you can just kick off
a backup with a cron job.

sort of... on amanda; if I want a backup to go off at 3am, and all the other
backups to start at 10pm; the one scheduled to go off at 3am will *still*
have its preliminary run (basically a backup to /dev/null, whereby it
determines how much data it will need to back up) go off at 10pm, and crush
that box until it's over.


If you are using dump or gnutar the impact of the estimate run should
be fairly minimal. Gnutar (at least recent versions) recognizes
output to /dev/null as a special case and doesn't bother actually
reading the data. It still has to grovel though the directory
entries and inodes to add up the space of course. It should be
about the same hit on the machine as a 'find / -print >/dev/null'
would be. If you are doing a windows box via smbtar it might be
much worse, though. It's hard to beat rsync for that. Too bad
we can't have amanda's intelligence about using the best scheme
for cramming the data on tapes along with backuppc's compression,
scheduling, and rsync method. I still run both but the tapes
go offsite for disaster recovery only and I hope to never have
to restore from one again.

---
Les Mikesell
les < at > futuresource.com




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software
Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to deliver
higher performing products faster, at low TCO.
http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users < at > lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Post Backup order 
On 05/06 09:57 , Les Mikesell wrote:
If you are using dump or gnutar the impact of the estimate run should
be fairly minimal.

'should be' and 'is' are two different things. the boss notices when his
workstation crawls; and I get an earful because of that, and that's what
counts. (a single 60GB IDE drive packed full of .75_Million_ little files of
source code will take a while to read off).

Too bad
we can't have amanda's intelligence about using the best scheme
for cramming the data on tapes

having wrestled with amanda's taping scheme for quite some time; I assure
you it has some really braindead annoyances. (like not scheduling large
backups to go on tape first, so the tape gets filled maximally; or not
first backing up hosts that haven't been backed up for a while, so they're
more likely to get to tape instead of continuing to fail; or easily telling
it "back up as much as you can to tape, leave the leftovers on disk to be
flushed manually").

along with backuppc's compression,
scheduling, and rsync method. I still run both but the tapes
go offsite for disaster recovery only and I hope to never have
to restore from one again.

I'm trying to migrate our setup to something like that... BackupPC for
onsite backups; and amanda for offsite. Better yet, BackupPC for everything,
and let it put recent data to tape occasionally for offsite storage.

I just need funding for a new backup server. Wink

Carl Soderstrom.
--
Systems Administrator
Real-Time Enterprises
www.real-time.com


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software
Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to deliver
higher performing products faster, at low TCO.
http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users < at > lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Post Backup order 
On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 10:12, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:

having wrestled with amanda's taping scheme for quite some time; I assure
you it has some really braindead annoyances.

There is one that is a killer - it can't split a single filesystem run
across two tapes. The rest it does much better than I'd ever do
myself.

(like not scheduling large
backups to go on tape first, so the tape gets filled maximally; or not
first backing up hosts that haven't been backed up for a while, so they're
more likely to get to tape instead of continuing to fail;

Give it some holding disk space and these things take care of themselves
as you flush anything that didn't fit on the first try. You shouldn't
ever have anything that continues to fail (or even fails once).

or easily telling
it "back up as much as you can to tape, leave the leftovers on disk to be
flushed manually").


If that doesn't happen by itself you have something configured wrong.
Your 'reserve' value has to be reasonable to allow it to do fulls
onto the holding disk instead of going to degraded mode and only
doing incrementals after it runs out of tape, but you really have
to go out of your way to keep it from making at least an incremental
every run and leaving it on disk if it can't go to tape. The only
thing it can't figure out is if any single filesystem doesn't fit
on a single tape. It will try, fail, leave it on disk, and fail
every time you try to flush it, but that is the only instance you
should have to fix by hand.

I'm trying to migrate our setup to something like that... BackupPC for
onsite backups; and amanda for offsite. Better yet, BackupPC for everything,
and let it put recent data to tape occasionally for offsite storage.

I just need funding for a new backup server. Wink

When my tape drive wears out I'll probably go for the biggest firewire
disk drives I can find, configured as raid mirrors and just trade one
periodically and re-sync to rotate for offsite. I use my desktop
machine as the backup server since it isn't doing anything at
night anyway. Meanwhile amanda does the best job I've seen at making
sure that within every set of 10 tapes there is at least one full run
of every filesystem, and every night it has at least an incremental
of each one and the incremental levels are the lowest that are likely
to fit. I don't see any way to get those concepts to mesh with
backuppc.

---
Les Mikesell
les < at > futuresource.com




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software
Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to deliver
higher performing products faster, at low TCO.
http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users < at > lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
  


Magic SEO URL for phpBB