7 -0000
On 06/06/12 07:48, John Winters wrote:
> On 05/06/12 14:10, S P wrote:
>> Miah, would you mind sharing your approach for backing up the entire
>> image? I am new to VPS backing up, and am searching for a good
>> approach.
>
> It's worth taking a look at dirvish - available as a standard package
> in Debian.
>
> It builds on top of rsync to enable you to keep multiple complete
> snapshots of a system. I use a dedicated backup box, with RAID1
> disks, to take backups of a number of systems including my Bitfolk
> virtual server.
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users@???
> https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
I can recommend backuupc
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
From mat.johns@??? Wed Jun 06 10:56:12 2012
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f48.google.com ([209.85.215.48])
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mat.johns@???>) id 1ScDuH-0001Hc-VL
for users@???; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:56:12 +0000
Received: by lagz14 with SMTP id z14so6542531lag.21
for <users@???>; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 03:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=xIIvmHXjY4qZ6Do3Evf0tWZJgt5P+Vd92yQHaGgaaXg=;
b=WuuQFbbf8L0tjrtoJQmzAonR2Aro13W1DBACsgIaZKdA2D2rkoqG/IHhXcPELZ3WIT
JQZPJ28T2+vFpVuFoQvpHa60BYb2HIkwNIJO2yj09wJwhNViNW1DxUOjewXePvtxlee9
DQqaR0ltLVnWeHq/YKVMnyh+8uGEhKk/UkCFVP7fvUkTu3n1uAkjSeRe4TTI+F63C1Hq
BlYMnTRJxESZziHtieVgtZuCcRK3kdiRuPN6s+MICGDGtpf/cmC3uQbSrElbx85XAeJU
FeOuv99A0pMUVFt74Qa0XjNEHTJ9rm4Ei3XyuiBYu1Q2raVZ+OcHyYqY/jFwexx2jd/C
MCJg==
Received: by 10.152.123.244 with SMTP id md20mr21138900lab.0.1338980159325;
Wed, 06 Jun 2012 03:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mat.johns@???
Received: by 10.112.82.97 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 03:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120604083741.GB24956@???>
References: <20120528144346.GX3867@???>
<4FC3C56E.7030302@???>
<20120604083741.GB24956@???>
From: Mat Johns <mat@???>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:55:39 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: pINVQaOygttzjsmJ4za5DMIcLGk
Message-ID: <CAHORQ3cwda6GaKCTsEXOgR4meYbzNaAwU1aAnqJzBVGa3s+nmQ@???>
To: users@???
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Wed,
06 Jun 2012 10:56:11 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.215.48
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mat.johns@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd0.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at
http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust
* [209.85.215.48 listed in list.dnswl.org]
* -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
* 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
* valid
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] 64-bit support
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:56:15 -0000
>- 64-bit is alleged to be a little slower and use more memory
> =C2=A0 per-process compared to 32-bit.
+1. I would have presumed that a large chunk of BitFolk's customer
base are hobbyist's, developers and small businesses who are at the
lower end of the RAM range. Admittedly we shouldn't make it too hard
for Andy to drum up new business (as with success potentially comes
more free upgrades), but for other suppliers I have dealt with who
support both, I have been very particular that I wanted 32bit for the
reasons we are discussing.
> Even if I had a 2G RAM server, I'd still want a 32-bit system.
+1. Unless you are in spitting distance of the 32bit limit, I would
prefer to stick to 32bit.
>> >A future memory upgrade (not planned as to when) will obviously push
>> >more people into the space where>2G RAM per process would be
>> >beneficial, so I will consider switching to only 64-bit by that
>> >time. Will anyone be terribly upset to leave 32-bit behind?
Upset, a little; no where near jumping ship (as BitFolk has always
exceeded expectations) but would prefer to keep the 32bit option (if
possible). Is it not possible to boot a 32bit Dom1 kernel from a 64bit
Dom0? Or is the overhead of maintaining the two sets of bootstraps?
~Mat
From andy@??? Wed Jun 06 11:07:00 2012
Received: from andy by mail.bitfolk.com with local (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <andy@???>) id 1ScE4p-0001vB-IN
for users@???; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:06:59 +0000
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:06:59 +0000
From: Andy Smith <andy@???>
To: users@???
Message-ID: <20120606110659.GJ11695@???>
References: <20120528144346.GX3867@???>
<4FC3C56E.7030302@???>
<20120604083741.GB24956@???>
<CAHORQ3cwda6GaKCTsEXOgR4meYbzNaAwU1aAnqJzBVGa3s+nmQ@???>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-ripemd160;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CUrluEZVXmx7ezWQ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHORQ3cwda6GaKCTsEXOgR4meYbzNaAwU1aAnqJzBVGa3s+nmQ@???>
OpenPGP: id=BF15490B; url=http://strugglers.net/~andy/pubkey.asc
X-URL: http://strugglers.net/wiki/User:Andy
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Wed,
06 Jun 2012 11
