Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:21:19 -0500 From: Matthew Juszczak <matt@atopia.net> To: Nicholas Basila <mlists@northglobe.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Backup Server Message-ID: <1072729279.2112.7.camel@prick> In-Reply-To: <200312290001.20709.mlists@northglobe.com> References: <20031226173013.96397.qmail@web60301.mail.yahoo.com> <200312281103.36613.mlists@northglobe.com> <1477.24.225.162.3.1072643177.squirrel@mail.webaries.com> <200312290001.20709.mlists@northglobe.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'm actually looking for a decent way to backup data on two servers to my local machine (which isn't accessible from the public). So obviously, I would need some sort of client app on my local machine to "connect" to the two remote BSD machines and backup the files I need locally. With rsync, it appears that my machine would need to run the server software, and the two servers would run clients. That just wouldn't work. Anyone have any ideas? tar plus maybe wget? Thanks, Matt On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 00:01, Nicholas Basila wrote: > On Sunday 28 December 2003 03:26 pm, Matt Juszczak wrote: > > I read somewhere about the AMANDA project. Is that any good for a > > situation like this? > Well, Amanda is certainly good for the backup of the data. The main > site's here: > > http://www.amanda.org/ > > and Curtis Preston put part of his O'Reilly book online: > http://www.backupcentral.com/amanda.html > > But... Amanda would not be a great choice because it's really a > backup system and you'd end up having to write scripts to restore from > dump files created by Amanda to the backup server filesystem. If you're > going to that trouble, it would be easier to use rsync. > Again, I think shared scsi or fibre channel would be the way to > go. I'm not sure how well FreeBSD supports shared scsi/fibre channel > drive sharing ( I know it supports some fibre channel adapters), > however. If it does work well, you could have a central RAID array > running RAID 10 and have the master DB server run with the drive > mounted. If the master had problems, the backup/secondary could take > over. You would have one set of data to contend with, and consequently, > synchronization would not be an issue. My only concern would be > filesystem writes and soft depends in general. > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1072729279.2112.7.camel>