On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 10:48 AM, <m.roth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
>> I'm not quite at that scale in a single instance myself, but I'm
>> fairly sure many users on the backuppc mail list are, so it is not
>> necessarily a problem, although there are some tradeoffs with extra
>> overhead for compression and the extra pool hardlink. In any case it
>> is trivial to install and test with the package in EPEL. Even if it
>> doesn't replace your server backup system you might find it useful to
>> point at some workstations or windows boxes (it can use smb as well as
>> rsync or tar to gather the files).
>>
> Heh. We don't do Windows. That's desktop support.... (As a side note, I
> work for a federal contractor at a non-defense site, so scale is, um,
> larger than many.)
The scaling side of things just trades a little more CPU for
compression and rsync-in-perl in return for vastly less disk
consumption so it's not a sure bet either way in that respect. I
think you've mentioned some subsequent off-line archiving scheme for
your data sets that wouldn't mesh very well, though. But, everyone
has lots of other stuff where backups would be nice to have and
backuppc makes it trivial to have, say, daily copies of all of /etc
from all machines going back months - or your own home directory.
And it doesn't blow up if you point it at a bunch of home directories
where developers have checked out copies of the same big source trees.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
