ken at kencausey.com
Sun Feb 6 16:33:12 UTC 2011
Forget the figures below regarding the time it has taken me to do an
incremental. I screwed up and did not do an incremental but a complete
copy (pathing mistake). I'm going to start it again (right I hope) and
I'll let you know.
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [Box-Admins] Permissions
> From: "Ken Causey" <ken at kencausey.com>
> Date: Sun, February 06, 2011 10:27 am
> To: "Squeak Hosting Support" <box-admins at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [Box-Admins] Permissions
> > From: Göran Krampe <goran at krampe.se>
> > Date: Sun, February 06, 2011 2:15 am
> > To: box-admins at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > Hi all!
> > Yes, we used rsnapshot earlier, but all though it uses rsync (good for
> > partial file changes) it ends up using hardlinks etc on the target and
> > thus consumes quite a bit of space there.
> > For my local needs (laptop onto a USB vfat drive) I ended up picking
> > Duplicity the other day. But either way we want a solution that
> > transfers only modifications.
> > I would be happy with a solution that simply keeps an offsite "mirror".
> > Rsnapshot gave us "history" too, and sure, if we can use it then it is
> > probably a good choice. Ken suspected transfers were large, but I am
> > unsure, I hope they are not and that it uses rsync for the actual transfer.
> There is no doubt that it is using rsync, it's just a fancy shell script
> really and it logs the major commands it executes in the log file
> (/var/log/rsnapshot.log). As such my early speculation that whole files
> are being sent is probably wrong, unless some special invocation of
> rsync is required for deltas to be used (I can't claim to be an rsync
> However, as I mentioned separately I'm trying to update my local backup
> of the primary server content in much the same way rsnapshot does, but
> manually (using rsync). I have an, in theory, 10mbit Internet
> connection, of which I really get more like 5-7mbit downloads. The
> incremental (since last July) of /home/ took over 6 hours and actually
> it doesn't look right to me, I'm going to have to do it again. I've
> started a sync of the other stuff now and we'll see how that goes and
> then I'll get back to /home/. My connection is asynchronous like most
> home connection (probably 3/4 mbit), so I wonder if there is a lot of
> two way traffic involved which could explain the time it is taking. I
> haven't done the math though to see what is reasonable.
> > Currently I don't have a proper broadband, but if we set up something
> > that can run "night time" off to people "home computers", then that
> > should be enough I think. The reason we used a server that my former
> > employer had was that it was also a Hetzner box so the connection was
> > really good.
> > regards, Göran
More information about the Box-Admins