<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div><span><br></span></div><div>I'll second all of this about rsync: it's very efficient and 'safe' for rrd data copies.</div><div><br></div><div>I don't have backups per-se, I run active mirrored rrd servers with millions of rrd datafiles per server and if one crashes where I need to rebuild one or install a new one for hardware upgrade like I'm doing today, then I use rsync to get a copy from another mirror ... actively. The replacement-mirror writes behind in the rrd update queue so it's updating older intervals than the rest of the cluster and then I copy from another mirror. I'm currently copying 1TB (one terabyte) and it works beautifully.</div><div><br></div><div>rsync would take a long time to do backups nightly of that many files (which is why it's not done); but on a few thousand'ish it can(should!) be
used.</div><div><br></div><div>If you use rsync over ssh, at least do something like this: rsync -ave 'ssh -c blowfish' src dst</div><div><br></div><div>I've yet to bother with rsync daemon with no ssh, though that'd be more efficient as well.</div><div><br></div><div>-Ryan</div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; "> <div style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 12pt; "> <div dir="ltr"> <font size="2" face="Arial"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> rrd-users@lists.oetiker.ch <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, July 17, 2012 4:47 AM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [rrd-users] Incremental backup rrd file<br> </font> </div> <br>
Darren Murphy wrote:<br>>Just to add a little to this, the --stats & --human-readable options<br>>provide useful insight as to the efficiency of rsync<br><snip><br>>So 3121 files totaling 4.3GB in size, and at least 90% of those files<br>>would change between successive sync runs, yet only a very small<br>>amount of data needs to be transferred.<br><br>That tallies with my experience. Obviously it varies considerably <br>with the type of data, but I've yet to find something where it <br>doesn't show a reduction in data transferred.<br>In general, RRD files should 'compress' quite well (unless you use <br>very small consolidations).<br><br>>I'd also add that in my experience rsync is incredibly robust and reliable.<br>>I've been running an hourly rsync from my main MRTG server to 3<br>>separate "slaves" for almost 2 years now, and never once had a problem<br>>with data integrity.<br><br>I'll second that. And of course,
even if the process dies part way <br>through, you can just run it again and it will catch up.<br><br>-- <br>Simon Hobson<br><br>Visit http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/ for books by acclaimed<br>author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as<br>Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books.<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>rrd-users mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:rrd-users@lists.oetiker.ch" href="mailto:rrd-users@lists.oetiker.ch">rrd-users@lists.oetiker.ch</a><br><a href="https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-users" target="_blank">https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-users</a><br><br><br> </div> </div> </div></body></html>