Hi,
I'm feeling a bit uneasy with the fact that someone has made the
/backup/ directory on this machine a symlink pointing to somewhere
below /osgeo/ and I'm going to revert this change if nobody objects.
Cheerio,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Spott wrote:
Hi,
I'm feeling a bit uneasy with the fact that someone has made the
/backup/ directory on this machine a symlink pointing to somewhere
below /osgeo/ and I'm going to revert this change if nobody objects.Cheerio,
Martin.
Martin,
I object!
What is wrong with this arrangement? I made the change so that
/osgeo/backup would be the official place, since you objected to my
referencing /osgeo/backup when it was a sym link.
I'm trying to make a concertated effort to have our stuff under
/osgeo on machines so it is easy to differentiate from system stuff.
Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent
Hi Frank,
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:33:36PM -0400, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
I'm feeling a bit uneasy with the fact that someone has made the
/backup/ directory on this machine a symlink pointing to somewhere
below /osgeo/ and I'm going to revert this change if nobody objects.
I object!
What is wrong with this arrangement? I made the change so that
/osgeo/backup would be the official place, since you objected to my
referencing /osgeo/backup when it was a sym link.
Well, this wasn't meant to be understood as "objection", I just wanted
to point out that symlinking this directory might lead to confusion,
sooner or later. But slowly I start to understand ....
I'm trying to make a concertated effort to have our stuff under
/osgeo on machines so it is easy to differentiate from system stuff.
.... that we're probably just having a different understanding with
respect to the meaning of a "backup" machine/server.
I'm familiar with backup servers in commercial environments - which
typically are dedicated machines to serve just this single purpose. The
"OSGeo Backup VM" instead seems more to end up as a dump site for
(partially antiquated) archives - with little understanding of what
modern backup offers 
So, may I at least remove the /backup/ symlink - in order to prevent
confusion ?
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Spott wrote:
> .... that we're probably just having a different understanding with
respect to the meaning of a "backup" machine/server.
I'm familiar with backup servers in commercial environments - which
typically are dedicated machines to serve just this single purpose. The
"OSGeo Backup VM" instead seems more to end up as a dump site for
(partially antiquated) archives - with little understanding of what
modern backup offers
Martin,
I'm not sure what to make of the above. I'll assume it does not imply
an action item for me.
So, may I at least remove the /backup/ symlink - in order to prevent
confusion ?
Feel free, I wasn't sure if you were depending on that within the backula
configuration so I preserved it.
Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent
Hi Frank,
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:59:27AM -0400, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
> .... that we're probably just having a different understanding with
respect to the meaning of a "backup" machine/server.
I'm familiar with backup servers in commercial environments - which
typically are dedicated machines to serve just this single purpose. The
"OSGeo Backup VM" instead seems more to end up as a dump site for
(partially antiquated) archives - with little understanding of what
modern backup offers
I'm not sure what to make of the above. I'll assume it does not imply
an action item for me.
No, at least not immediately. But if you/we are about making a
consistent directory layout among the different servers, then we should
probably take maybe not all but at least most of the reasonable options
into account.
1.) Why are people running 'rsync' synchronization when a real backup
system is available !?
2.) I'm proposing a directory nomenclature where mostly static data as
well as database dumps are living below just one or two directories
(let's say "/var/www/" and "/osgeo/") and these are going to be
included into the regular, daily backup procedure. Volatile stuff
like live databases, SVN, LDAP and the like, all the stuff which is
better saved via a dump, are supposed to live in their usual
places.
3.) The backup system, at least to my understanding, is much different
from the more or less visible "OSGeo services" - so why is its
storage directory forced into the same directory nomenclature !?
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Spott wrote:
Hi Frank,
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:59:27AM -0400, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
> .... that we're probably just having a different understanding with
respect to the meaning of a "backup" machine/server.
I'm familiar with backup servers in commercial environments - which
typically are dedicated machines to serve just this single purpose. The
"OSGeo Backup VM" instead seems more to end up as a dump site for
(partially antiquated) archives - with little understanding of what
modern backup offersI'm not sure what to make of the above. I'll assume it does not imply
an action item for me.No, at least not immediately. But if you/we are about making a
consistent directory layout among the different servers, then we should
probably take maybe not all but at least most of the reasonable options
into account.1.) Why are people running 'rsync' synchronization when a real backup
system is available !?
Martin,
Rsync is working just fine as a mirroring mechanism for the download
site for which I already had to run the rsync server on anyways. I don't
see an issue.
2.) I'm proposing a directory nomenclature where mostly static data as
well as database dumps are living below just one or two directories
(let's say "/var/www/" and "/osgeo/") and these are going to be
included into the regular, daily backup procedure. Volatile stuff
like live databases, SVN, LDAP and the like, all the stuff which is
better saved via a dump, are supposed to live in their usual
places.
I don't have any strong position on this. It seems plausible.
3.) The backup system, at least to my understanding, is much different
from the more or less visible "OSGeo services" - so why is its
storage directory forced into the same directory nomenclature !?
Things like the /osgeo directory on the servers are not visible to end
users so I don't see the distinction you are making. I am just trying to
put the bulk of OSGeo stuff into /osgeo on the osgeo servers for easy
finding. If you object to this then handle the backula stuff as you wish
and I'll handle the aspects of the backup server I manage as I wish.
Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent