Jason Rogers wrote:
I will hop on as soon as I can to take care of this. I am in New York right now and unable (company firewall) to access the box. We really need a better backup policy in general, but I don't know what to do. Perhaps we don't use a Unix process at all. We could schedule a process in the images that will snapshot the image as a current and a backup.
What do you all think?
Sounds good. We already do manual image save on each change on the Smallwiki process. Maybe a similar backup button would be enough ? Do you want to implement it? Karl
On Dec 17, 2007 6:56 PM, Ken Causey ken@kencausey.com wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 00:45 +0100, karl wrote:
Ken Causey wrote:
We are climbing up above 90% disk usage on box2 so time for another audit. Previously I managed to talk you into a more conservative backup schedule. Now I would like to ask you to cleanup what is being backed up. A little nosing around indicates that you are backing up a lot of files that I suspect were just used in setting up the sites/testing and or just junk at this point:
# tar ztf backups/foundation/2007-12-17-0005.tgz SqF-Pier-1.5-maybe-bad.image SqF-Pier-1.5-safe.image SqF-Pier-1.5-safe.old.image SqF-Pier-1.5.image SqF-Pier-1.5.old.image SqueakFoundation.image SqF-Pier-1.5-maybe-bad.changes SqF-Pier-1.5-safe.changes SqF-Pier-1.5-safe.old.changes SqF-Pier-1.5.changes SqF-Pier-1.5.old.changes SqueakFoundation.changes
Squeak foundation images are not used at all. Brad Fuller put a lot of effort into it but the foundation is a a few pages in the squeak.org image. You can delete foundation directory and backups
I'd prefer if Brad could confirm he has no more interest in any of that content and one of you take care of it.
# tar ztf backups/2007-12-17-0005.tgz smallwikiSnapshot.1.image smallwikiSnapshot.backup.image smallwikiSnapshot.image smallwikiSnapshot.1.changes smallwikiSnapshot.backup.changes smallwikiSnapshot.changes
s# tar ztf backups/testing/2007-12-17-0005.tgz smallwikiSnapshot.backup.image smallwikiSnapshot.image wwwtest.squeak.org.backup.image wwwtest.squeak.org.image smallwikiSnapshot.backup.changes smallwikiSnapshot.changes wwwtest.squeak.org.backup.changes wwwtest.squeak.org.changes
I'm not at all sure how backup is run. I screwed up the squeak.org image a few years back and found that the images backed up were useless because they were copied from a unix process on a running image I think. We need backup of squeak.org image.
That's fine, but even the backup of the main site involves backing up 3 image and changes file sets. I can maybe imagine 2 sets (current and previous to last modification), but 3?
The wwwtest.squeak.org image we hardly use anymore, but it is good for testing major changes to style scripts etc. wwwtest.squeak.org does not need backup now. I guess we can turn backup on when someone get the urge to hack at stuff.
Either that or just scale back the extent to which wwwtest is backed up. Again, I'm primarily concerned about the backing up of files which never change.
Are all of these files needed at all, much less needing to be backed up over and over again?
I guess not
The home directory for the website team totals 4.3GB. Since there is an rsync backup also on the server that is doubled, and then any images that change are backed up in their entirety again. So in effect the website team ends up using perhaps as much as 10GB on the server. Anything you can do to lower this I would greatly appreciate.
I think you can delete all the files I mentioned.
I'd rather not delete anything myself. However designed the backup process of course would need to change that.
Thanks,
Ken
Karl
Webteam mailing list Webteam@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/webteam