(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:09:12PM -0700, Steve Simitzis wrote: > on second thought, i've given up on the coda backup system. no offense > to the smart people who make coda a great system to use, but the backup > system is too fragile to be trusted for production applications. nothing > worries me more than the possibility of "write-only" backups. Actually, once we hit more than 100 replicated volumes on our machines the whole manual scheduling of full vs. incrementals across backup tapes just became too complicated. So we've been using Amanda for backups :) It did need a couple of tweaks, the Amanda client side was easy enough with a couple of wrapper scripts, but the server refused to parse any dumplists that referred to backup-type 'Coda'. As far as the server is concerned it really didn't matter what the actual dumptype is and simply removing a single hardcoded test made everything work. > after a couple of years of success using rdiff-backup for source code > and general system backups, i just started using it for my coda > backups. rdiff-backup reads from the mounted coda filesystem and > writes the backup to cheap disk. it maintains a live mirror with diffs > going back as far as you want. it's an excellent tool. There are advantages and disadvantages to such an approach, - All files and directories have to be fetched by the client every time a backup is run. The server already has all the data and can efficiently do an incremental dump which limits the data it sends to only recently changed files/directories. - Fetching a complete volume (voldump) is more efficient than fetching all individual files/directories. - It is not easy to exploit parallelism when there are multiple servers. Any server-side backup scheme can easily pull the data from the servers at the same time. - If there is a conflict a whole subtree will not be backed up. The server-side scheme will capture complete volume replicas so nothing can ever get overlooked. The disadvantage for server-side backup is that it grabs all replicas and as such ends up with several identical copies of any file that is not in conflict. - Client-side backup will take a long time, during which the underlying filesystem can change, so it might miss parts of the tree if directories or files were added/removed or renamed. Server-side backups are an exact snapshot of a volume at the time the backup started. But if it works, great. The most important part of backups is whether it is possible to reliably recover and the volume dumps do have the problem that they require a server for restore and that there are issues with the size of the codadump files. The good news here is that Satya wrote a working codadump -> tar converter, which will make the recovery of data from Coda volume dumps a lot easier. JanReceived on 2004-07-07 14:34:01