-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 246
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Optimizing for speed when rsync is in use #2875
Comments
@fadamo could you please be more specific? What backup method and BACKUP_URL are you using? And which file does "the code" refer to? |
We use this config:
and actually we do this:
for every server before calling rear. We have a lot of limitation by our security deparment, there is a firewall between servers and NAS..... a long story. We had to implement a complex configuration.
Less then 6 minutes. |
We have also another kind of configuration for which I'm extracting some info:
|
OK, try this configuration:
Modify these files:
then run 3 times
In my case:
I don't know if it's correct to modify files in /usr/share/rear/output/default, probably it should be better to use something like /usr/share/rear/output/NETFS (or RSYNC). BTW updating an old backup is much more convenient when using rsync. |
Thank you for the information, and what version of ReaR is this? A log above shows 2.4, is that the case also for the version you are experimenting with? |
Yes, we are using 2.4 (RHEL 7) and 2.6 (RHEL 8). I checked the latest files (on github) and are still the same I have. |
Stale issue message |
Stale issue message |
Stale issue message |
Stale issue message |
Stale issue message |
Stale issue message |
Stale issue message |
Stale issue message |
Stale issue message |
By backing up the system via rsync, the process involves:
So, basically, we have to wait for minutes (we save on NAS) due to "rm -rf" and many minutes due to rsync starting from scratch.
We found that modifying the code with something like:
we are able to backup a server in a couple of minutes.
What do you think about? Can the modification be considered?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: