<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body smarttemplateinserted="true">
<div id="smartTemplate4-quoteHeader">
<div style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana,Arial">> Well,
sort of. It is a method that is actually focused around doing
backups. It happens to make use of the replication protocol
because that is actually the smart way to do it. I did detail
the differences in my message.<br>
<br>
I suggest you try to use it in your deployments and then share
with us your real-world experience, like how reliable it is, how
well the compression works, how easy it is to recover something
if both master and the backup instances become unaccessible
(disk failure in both or both servers are stolen (this is a SME
office, not a tier 4 datacenter) and the backups from an
external location should be brought in), what data is missing
(if at all) after a backup recovery, how incremental backups are
done, etc. I tried it in a <i>real deployment</i> a year ago
when it was just released and my conclusion was that it was not
well-suited for a SME environment (at least at that moment).<br>
<br>
<br>
> Honestly I believe that's the wrong way to go about it<br>
<br>
What about <font face="Courier New">mysqldump > dump.sql</font>,
then <font face="Courier New">mysql < dump.sql</font>? Also
a wrong way and didn't have to be implemented? I bet this is the
most deployed method for DB backups in the real SME world (like
<font face="Courier New">cron mysqldump --routines
--all-databases | xz -9 > /bu/`date
+%y%m%d_%H%M`_full.sql.xz</font>), though there are
replication solutions available too. The Unix way is about
minimalist, modular software.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm
0cm;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><b>From:</b>
Jason L Tibbitts Iii<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 10, 2018 16:38<br>
<b>To:</b> Anatoli<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Info-cyrus<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Backup methods<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<span type="cite" cite="mid:ufawowbjo7l.fsf@epithumnia.math.uh.edu"
style="display: block; word-break: break-all; margin: 7px 0 0 0;
padding: 0; line-height:0"></span>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">"A" == Anatoli <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:me@anatoli.ws"><me@anatoli.ws></a> writes:
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
A> What you mention is highly related to the replication backup
A> we were talking about in the previous mails.
Well, sort of. It is a method that is actually focused around doing
backups. It happens to make use of the replication protocol because
that is actually the smart way to do it. I did detail the differences
in my message.
A> In both cases, a copy of the master data is made, which requires
A> twice the space of real usage (Cyrus Backups tries to apply
A> compression on stored data, not sure how well it works).
As I mentioned, the documentation discusses this.
A> What is really needed, IMO, for SME environments is the ability for
A> Cyrus to sync to disk all data, so one can take a hot copy of that
A> data with standard UNIX tools and then handle it accordingly. Once a
A> recovery is needed, one just copies a backup to the Cyrus dir and
A> starts the service.
Honestly I believe that's the wrong way to go about it, but it's
certainly one way to do things if you have no backup solution integrated
into the software. But hey, it's your data. I only wanted to mention
that there really is an existing backup solution which wasn't being
discussed.
- J<
</pre>
<br>
</body>
</html>