Backup Central

On 24/05/12 12:29, ad^2 wrote:
Correct. As I mentioned in the original post.

The volume had about 1TB of other data. A block level copy would have
taken to long.

I suspect that the time taken to do a block level copy (including the additional 1TB) and then deleting the 1TB of data would still be quicker than any other solution (unless the backuppc data was exceptionally small).

Just my thoughts on the matter...

Regards,
Adam

--
Adam Goryachev
Website Managers
www.websitemanagers.com.au

On 05/24 12:35 , Adam Goryachev wrote:
I suspect that the time taken to do a block level copy (including the
additional 1TB) and then deleting the 1TB of data would still be quicker
than any other solution (unless the backuppc data was exceptionally small).

I agree with Adam, I have had similar experiences.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users < at > lists.sourceforge.net
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

On May 23, 2012, at 10:32 PM, "ad^2" <adsquaired < at > gmail.com> wrote:

Correct. As I mentioned in the original post.

The volume had about 1TB of other data. A block level copy would have
taken to long.

I can't argue with the "too long" part: if your requirement was that the
data copy over in milliseconds, nothing would copy the data over fast
enough.

However, copying the file system at the block level is the fastest way to
copy the data. And assuming gigabit ethernet between two computers, you
should be able to get at least 50 MB per second of data transferred. A
terabyte of data would take in the neighborhood of 200 seconds to copy
over. Even if for some reason you could only get half that performance,
you would be talking about less than 10 minutes to copy that much data.

I'm really not telling you that the way you've done it is a bad way to do
it: I almost never copy data from one BackupPC to the other. I do it the
way you did it: set up a new server, and keep the old server around until I
don't care about the data anymore. In my case, we don't really keep the
data on our backup servers for more than a period of a few months.

However, it seemed a bunch of people replied about making tar copies, and
waiting for a time period measured in *days* for it to finish. I was
wondering what was so unique and important that caused people to do it that
way. Other than changing filesystem types, I just didn't see it.
Timothy J. Massey

Sent from my iPhone


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users < at > lists.sourceforge.net
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/