Backups
Mike McGrath
mmcgrath at redhat.com
Tue Jun 5 21:40:14 UTC 2007
Nils Breunese wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
>
>
>> We're starting to get into backup needs that will include a lot of data
>> thats not redundant so backuppc's pooling won't really benefit us that
>> much.
>>
>
> Ok, fair enough. I thought there was talk of having static content on
> multiple servers, that's where BackupPC's pooling feature could come in
> pretty handy, but I have no idea about what amounts of data we're talking.
>
>
Yeah but over time thats become a much smaller percentage of our overall
backup needs. Our one-off binary files have grown much faster than our
smaller static content files have.
>> Hopefully we'll be using both tape and disk backups. Once our new disk
>> tray gets in we'll have to prepare to backup a couple TB of Binary
>> RPMs. Some of our backups will be going to disk, some will be going to
>> tape. Additionally it seems that bacula is more efficient at backing
>> things up.
>>
>
> Efficient in term of what precisely? And what backend are we using with
> BackupPC right now?
>
In terms of how long it takes to do the backups and how much load it
requires. BackupPC is written in perl.
-Mike
More information about the Fedora-infrastructure-list
mailing list