[ale] Today's lesson: rdiff-backup restores

[Jim Kinney]

I'm looking at a replication machine full sync, power down, relocate, power
up, turn on gluster for constant sync, backup from that in another building.
On Feb 23, 2016 10:12 AM, "Lightner, Jeff" <JLightner at dsservices.com> wrote:

> To be clear:  I wasn’t saying you’d do 10 GB for the replication.  I was
> saying you’d do 10 GB for the initial backups.
>
>
>
> The replication is envisioned as a WAN connection for DR purposes but no
> doubt would work on LAN between buildings.    The replication as I noted
> previously is a background process to sync the units – not a live copy that
> runs at same time as the original backup.   A replication that could give
> you another copy that took hours is still much better than your monthly or
> our weekly off-siting of tapes.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] *On Behalf Of *Jim
> Kinney
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 9:59 AM
> *To:* Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux!
> *Subject:* Re: [ale] Today's lesson: rdiff-backup restores
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 23, 2016 9:48 AM, "Lightner, Jeff" <JLightner at dsservices.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Big boys?   Do you know of a FOSS deduplication (block level) solution?
>
> Other than the ZFS implementation, I'm not certain of it's FLOSS
> credentials, no.
> >
> >
> >
> > Backup to dedupe appliance can be done in various ways.   The two big
> ones are “inline” and “post-ingest”.   The former has higher resource
> requirements on the servers being backed up than the latter.   The latter
> doesn’t take any more resources than backup to tape generally.    You can
> also do 10 GB fibre on NFS/CIFS mounts or you can do OST over fibre SAN.
> >
>
> I can't get 10G between the 2 locations available to me and one location
> now has a moratorium on new hardware.
> >
> >
> > One of my great annoyances with Quantum DXi was that they made a
> “firmware” change a few years back that actually turned out to be full
> upgrade of the embedded Linux they were using (CentOS based I think)
> wherein they switched from post-ingest to inline.   It killed our backup
> window to the point I refused to even try using that new “firmware”.  They
> finally put us back on the old one.   They continually say they’ve made
> improvements to that newer “firmware” and have better hardware that makes
> inline work better.    Given this was a few years ago we had the issue it
> is possible they’re correct now but we don’t use them anymore.
> >
> >
> >
> > I liked Data Domain but after EMC bought them we were no longer keen on
> them for non-technical reasons.    Since Dell bought EMC it will be
> interesting to see if the culture of Dell overrides EMC or vice-versa.
> >
> >
> >
> > At the end of last year we got ExaGrid units and so far we’re quite
> happy with those.   We’re getting faster backups  over NFS (on 10 GB) than
> we do to our SAN attached tape library.
> >
> >
> >
> > The “Vaulting” I spoke of is a setup that allows us to do copies of all
> backed up images from one storage unit to another based on the vaulting
> policy setup rather than having to do manual individual duplications of
> images.    The catalog that lets us search for backups shows both copies
> (until the primary expires from dedupe at which point we see only the
> duplicated image.   In a litigious society having access to old backups is
> important for most corporations.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20160223/71c05912/attachment.html>