So I want a backup solution
I look after a lot of systems, and most of them want identical and simple backups taking of their filesystems. Currently I use backup2l which works but suffers from a couple of minor issues.
In short I want to take a full filesystem backup (i.e. Backup "/"). I wish to only exclude a few directories and mounted filesystems.
So my configuration looks like this:
# List of directories to make backups of.
# All paths MUST be absolute and start with a '/'!
SRCLIST=( / /boot -xdev )
# The following expression specifies the files not to be archived.
SKIPCOND=( -path '/var/backups/localhost' -o -path '/var/run/' -o \
-path '/tmp' -o -path '/var/tmp' \
-o -path '/dev' -o -path '/spam' \
-o -path '/var/spool/' )
The only surprising thing here is that I abuse the internals of backup2l because I know that it uses "find" to build up a list of files - so I sneakily add int "-xdev" to the first argument. This means I don't accidentally backup any mounted gluster filesystem, mounted MySQL binary/log mounts, etc.
backup2l then goes and does its jobs. It allows me to define things to run before and after the backup runs via code like this:
# This user-defined bash function is executed before a backup is made
PRE_BACKUP ()
{
if [ -d /etc/backup2l/pre.d/ ]; then
run-parts /etc/backup2l/pre.d/
fi
}
So what is my gripe? Well I get a daily email, per-system, which shows lots of detail - but the key thing. The important thing. The thing I care about more than anything else, the actual "success" or "fail" result is only discoverable by reading the mail.
If the backup fails, due to out of disk, I won't know unless I read the middle of the mail.
If the pre/post-steps fail I won't know unless I examine the output.
As I said to a colleague today in my view the success or failure of the backup is the combination of each of three distinct steps:
- pre-backup jobs.
- backup itself
- post-backup jobs.
If any of the three fail I want to know. If they succeed then ideally I don't want a mail at all - but if I get one it should have:
Subject: Backup Success - $(hostname) - $(date)
So I've looked around at programs such as backup-ninja, backup-manager and they seem similar. It is a shame as I mostly like backup2l, but in short I want to do the same thing on about 50-250 hosts:
- Dump mysql, optionally.
- Dump postgresql, optionally.
- Dump the filesystem. Incrementals are great, but full copies are probably tolerable.
- Rsync those local filesystem backups to a remote location.
In my case it is usually the rsync-step that fails. Which is horrific if you don't notice (quota exceeded. connection reset by peer. etc). The local backups are good enough for 95% of recovery times - but if the hardware is fried having the backups be available, albeit slowly, is required.
Using GNU Tar incrementally is trivial. If it weren't such a messy program I'd probably be inclined to hack on backup2l - but in 2012 I can't believe I need to.
(Yes, backuppc rocks. So does duplicity. So does amanda. But they're not appropriate here. Sadly.)
ObQuote: "Oh, I get it. I see now. You've been training for two years to take me out, and now here I am. Whew! " - Blade II - An example of a rare breed, a sequel that doesn't suck. No pun intended.
Syndicated 2012-04-05 21:12:14 from Steve Kemp's Blog
