In article <b2boe09sa40dl34hj7onqv9i4ke7gj50em@4ax.com>,
Matt  <matt@downwithspammers-mengland.net> wrote:
>Hi Thanatos,
>
>On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:03:36 +1000, "Thanatos" <dgahan@europe.com>
>wrote: 
>
>Your post (not all of it shown here) makes a lot of sense to me.  If
>I'm reading things correctly, your post describes the challenges of
>making an "on-the-fly"/real-time filesystem snapshot.
>
>For what it's worth, I personally do not have necessary requirement
>for the real-time portion of the snapshot capability.  Rather, my main
>focus is to save space for my disk-to-disk backups (mostly of just my
>personal systems, but it could branch out into other things).  These
>backups need not be performed in an automated fashion, nor must they
>run in real time on a production system.  I'm happy to shut all my
>data-access applications down, and run a backup "snapshot" for a
>period of minutes to hours (probably a max of 2 hours, maybe more if I
>stick to strickly running this at night).
>
>My biggest problem is storage space.  My currently-sized 5-10GB
>backups (that will soon be growing) end up eating up a lot of space on
>my 120GB external drives each time I do a full-copy snapshot.  Since I
>have no economic mechanism for incremental file-system snapshots, I
>must copy over the entire directory structure every time.  I wish I
>could get something that could do these incrementals on FAT32/NTFS and
>thus dramatically reduce my storage capacity needs for my backup
>retention disk media.  I care not if this is done real-time or
>automatically; I just want to save storage space.
>
>Does that change how one is to approach this?

See what the entry-level network storage boxes from NetApp and the EMC
file servers that Dell sells cost.




--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes  at p a n i x . c o m

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

quote:
Originally posted by Al Dykes 
In article <b2boe09sa40dl34hj7onqv9i4ke7gj50em@4ax.com>,
Matt  <matt@downwithspammers-mengland.net> wrote:
>Hi Thanatos,
>
>On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:03:36 +1000, "Thanatos" <dgahan@europe.com>
>wrote: 
>
>Your post (not all of it shown here) makes a lot of sense to me.  If
>I'm reading things correctly, your post describes the challenges of
>making an "on-the-fly"/real-time filesystem snapshot.
>
>For what it's worth, I personally do not have necessary requirement
>for the real-time portion of the snapshot capability.  Rather, my main
>focus is to save space for my disk-to-disk backups (mostly of just my
>personal systems, but it could branch out into other things).  These
>backups need not be performed in an automated fashion, nor must they
>run in real time on a production system.  I'm happy to shut all my
>data-access applications down, and run a backup "snapshot" for a
>period of minutes to hours (probably a max of 2 hours, maybe more if I
>stick to strickly running this at night).
>
>My biggest problem is storage space.  My currently-sized 5-10GB
>backups (that will soon be growing) end up eating up a lot of space on
>my 120GB external drives each time I do a full-copy snapshot.  Since I
>have no economic mechanism for incremental file-system snapshots, I
>must copy over the entire directory structure every time.  I wish I
>could get something that could do these incrementals on FAT32/NTFS and
>thus dramatically reduce my storage capacity needs for my backup
>retention disk media.  I care not if this is done real-time or
>automatically; I just want to save storage space.
>
>Does that change how one is to approach this?

See what the entry-level network storage boxes from NetApp and the EMC
file servers that Dell sells cost.




--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes  at p a n i x . c o m 
 


Acronis TrueImage supposedly supports this function w/o 20k for a minimum De
ll AX100.  We haven't tested it but this might be exactly what you're lookin
g for.

http://www.acronis.com/products/trueimage/

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Hi,

I personally use Relative Rev Backup by Datamills to take incremental backups. try to l
ook for it at  http://www.simtel.com

Benben

quote:
Originally posted by Al Dykes 
In article <b2boe09sa40dl34hj7onqv9i4ke7gj50em@4ax.com>,
Matt  <matt@downwithspammers-mengland.net> wrote:
>Hi Thanatos,
>
>On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:03:36 +1000, "Thanatos" <dgahan@europe.com>
>wrote: 
>
>Your post (not all of it shown here) makes a lot of sense to me.  If
>I'm reading things correctly, your post describes the challenges of
>making an "on-the-fly"/real-time filesystem snapshot.
>
>For what it's worth, I personally do not have necessary requirement
>for the real-time portion of the snapshot capability.  Rather, my main
>focus is to save space for my disk-to-disk backups (mostly of just my
>personal systems, but it could branch out into other things).  These
>backups need not be performed in an automated fashion, nor must they
>run in real time on a production system.  I'm happy to shut all my
>data-access applications down, and run a backup "snapshot" for a
>period of minutes to hours (probably a max of 2 hours, maybe more if I
>stick to strickly running this at night).
>
>My biggest problem is storage space.  My currently-sized 5-10GB
>backups (that will soon be growing) end up eating up a lot of space on
>my 120GB external drives each time I do a full-copy snapshot.  Since I
>have no economic mechanism for incremental file-system snapshots, I
>must copy over the entire directory structure every time.  I wish I
>could get something that could do these incrementals on FAT32/NTFS and
>thus dramatically reduce my storage capacity needs for my backup
>retention disk media.  I care not if this is done real-time or
>automatically; I just want to save storage space.
>
>Does that change how one is to approach this?

See what the entry-level network storage boxes from NetApp and the EMC
file servers that Dell sells cost.




--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes  at p a n i x . c o m 

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]