[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       opensuse
Subject:    [opensuse] Re: NAS home backup?
From:       Linda Walsh <suse () tlinx ! org>
Date:       2014-07-11 2:06:42
Message-ID: 53BF46B2.1020500 () tlinx ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Thomas Taylor wrote:
> I would like to set up an older desktop system for backing up five home systems
> over the internal LAN.  This would probably be a scheduled weekly job involving
> both Linux and Windows boxes.
>
> What hardware other than the computer, LAN card, and LARGE (2+ TB-wife has LOTS
> of photos) disk would be needed?
>   
----
If you are going to backup "alot", I'd suggest upgrading your
internal lan to 1Gbit if you are not there already.

I wouldn't bother trying to use NFS on windows..

Cygwin/rsync is "ok", but even w/gbit, don't expect more than
about 5-10MB/s.  Knock that down to <1-3MB/s if you use
anytype of compression.

A problem w/rsync is that you will have to tweak the options a fair amount
to backup groups, and win-permission lists.

If you want to be able to do full restores, you'll find it easiest to use
Windows Backup (or NT-backup for full backups on WinXP).
Windows achieves 60-70MB/s doing or restoring
a backup over a 1Gb net with good disks.

If you just want to copy over files, which is likely for more frequent 
backups
of data disks (maybe do image backup w/winbackup -- but would need
samba setup for that ), but say you wanted to copy over the target machines
"home" (/Users) directory(ies).   I think you will find it faster
to simply tar up files or copy them with the Win disks mounted on
linux.  It will usually be faster than trying to push the data on Win to
a samba server, after you add in disk i/.

*IF* you work hard and tune samba (I have yet to install Samba 4, so I
don't know what the perf numbers are using it), I could regularly get
125MB writes and 119MB reads as reported by 'dd' (reports SI units).

If you want to do compression, and if you have the room, and time, you might
do the uncompressed backup so it will finish in some reasonable time, then
run a compress job of choice on linux.  For large archives, I think rzip 
will give
you the most bang for the buck, BUT for large files, it can still take 1 
or more
days (which is why I don't bother compressing anymore).  Even w/lowest 
settings
on gzip, my backup speed was slowed to <5MB/s (latencies is a killer...and
today's machines aren't fast enough compress much faster than that. 


Encryption schemes will slow that down more (for backups, you don't
want to *have* to use encryption -- i.e. backup computer on "internal,
non-routable (192.168.0-255.0-255, for example), but that could
require 2 network cards (1Gb cards can be had for <$20 (or they
used to)).  I try to use dual intf. cards on most of my computers.

One way to "stay ahead" in the backup game... is to lower the need
for it.  I keep all my data on a "server" (an actual dell server these
days -- up from my old dual-socket P-III workstation solution
after it died after almost 10 years in service).

It depends on the applications and speed requirements, but
I keep my Documents and Media (basically all my "content")
on the linux box where I can run direct backups on it.

Overall .. if you aren't looking to restore a dead system from a backup
but just save copies of personal files, the running of tar on
cifs mount of the remote hard disks is likely the way to go.

You'll have to be sure to give 'Admin' full access to all the files you
want to backup.

You could try multiple backup methods and go w/what works best in your
environment -- more work, but better result long term.

post back if you have Q's.....

Linda

-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]