On 2/26/2013 3:03 PM, Patrick Flaherty wrote:
> That being said, if you have a requirement that your backup solution
> is up five nines, then yeah, use drbd / pacemaker, it's just not a use
> case I see very often.
don't have anywhere near that sort of uptime requirements, but when data
starts spiralling out into the multi-terabytes with billions of file
links, rsync is painfully slow.
the use case is more like, if the primary backup server fails, I'd like
to have the secondary backup server running within a few hours of
futzing with the existing backups available for recovery.
maybe I should use backupPC's archiving feature, but if I have to
restore 20TB or whatever of files and links from an archive, that could
well take the better part of a week.
the way I figure it, drbd would give me a backup copy of the backup
system thats ready for near immediate use. failover would be a manual
process, but simple and quick (stop drbd, mount the archive, start the
standby backup PC server)..
--
john r pierce 37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
