Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #170643 > unrolled thread

Debian server for backups of Windows clients

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Debian server for backups of Windows clients Daniel Bareiro <daniel-listas@gmx.net> - 2016-08-02 23:20 +0200
    Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2016-08-03 05:30 +0200
      Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Daniel Bareiro <daniel-listas@gmx.net> - 2016-08-08 20:30 +0200
        Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2016-08-09 05:30 +0200
          Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Daniel Bareiro <daniel-listas@gmx.net> - 2016-08-10 01:30 +0200
            Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2016-08-10 04:00 +0200
              Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 21:00 +0200
                Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Daniel Bareiro <daniel-listas@gmx.net> - 2016-09-09 21:50 +0200
                  Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 23:20 +0200
                    Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Daniel Bareiro <daniel-listas@gmx.net> - 2016-09-11 14:30 +0200
                  Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 00:10 +0200
                    Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Daniel Bareiro <daniel-listas@gmx.net> - 2016-09-11 14:10 +0200
                Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2016-09-10 05:40 +0200
                  Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-09-10 06:20 +0200
                    Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients "Neal P. Murphy" <neal.p.murphy@alum.wpi.edu> - 2016-09-10 07:30 +0200
                      Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2016-09-10 14:50 +0200
                        Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 16:30 +0200
                          Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-09-10 16:50 +0200
                            Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 17:00 +0200
                              Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2016-09-10 17:40 +0200
                              Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-09-10 19:40 +0200
                              Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients "Neal P. Murphy" <neal.p.murphy@alum.wpi.edu> - 2016-09-11 07:50 +0200
                    Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2016-09-10 08:20 +0200
                  Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 04:30 +0200
              Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Daniel Bareiro <daniel-listas@gmx.net> - 2016-09-09 21:50 +0200
                Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2016-09-10 05:50 +0200
                  Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 04:30 +0200
                    Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2016-09-11 05:10 +0200
    Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients didier gaumet <didier.gaumet@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 10:40 +0200
      Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Daniel Bareiro <daniel-listas@gmx.net> - 2016-08-10 01:40 +0200
        Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients didier gaumet <didier.gaumet@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 18:50 +0200
          Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients didier gaumet <didier.gaumet@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:00 +0200
    Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-08-08 11:10 +0200
      Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Daniel Bareiro <daniel-listas@gmx.net> - 2016-08-08 22:10 +0200
        Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2016-08-09 05:30 +0200
          Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Mike McGinn <mikemcginn@mcginnweb.net> - 2016-08-09 15:40 +0200
      Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Glenn English <ghe@slsware.net> - 2016-08-08 23:40 +0200
        Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Daniel Bareiro <daniel-listas@gmx.net> - 2016-08-09 03:20 +0200
    Re: Debian server for backups of Windows clients Joel Wirāmu Pauling <joel@aenertia.net> - 2016-08-10 02:20 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#172001

On Saturday 10 September 2016 10:53:20 rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, September 10, 2016 10:40:26 AM Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 September 2016 10:26:15 rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 10, 2016 08:41:53 AM Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > > It's in megabytes per second, so assume 1000/8 = 250 MB/s is the
> > > > bandwidth of a gigabit ethernet NIC.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I tend to pick at nits, but, for the record, 1000/8 is 125
> > > Mb/s.  It doesn't (really) change your conclusions.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > Randy Kramer
> >
> > You make an assumption many folks do, but theres a start bit and a
> > stop bit so the math is more like 1000/10=100 Mb/s.
>
> Well, 1000/8 is still 125 ;-) but I wouldn't have written back just to
> say that.  Isn't it the case that there is something less than 1 start
> and 1 stop for every byte--maybe like 1 stop bit for every several
> bytes?  (I am just (slightly) curious.)
>
> And, iirc, there are variations (which may be obsolete--I seem to
> remember one protocol that had either 2 start or 2 stop bits?

Yes, still in use in some legacy stuffs.

There may be some inroads into the 10 bits per byte, but tcp is so old I 
doubt that synchronization portion took a hit.  Thats what it is, is 
keeping everything in synch. Even USB has that same data format. Sata 
for disks, being much newer, may have abandoned that, particularly for 
the disks whose native format is a 4096 byte sector. I've also found 
sata cabling is about 1000% flakier, requiring more frequent 
replacements.

> regards,
> Randy Kramer


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#172029

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 10:53:20 -0400
rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, September 10, 2016 10:40:26 AM Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 September 2016 10:26:15 rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 10, 2016 08:41:53 AM Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > > It's in megabytes per second, so assume 1000/8 = 250 MB/s is the
> > > > bandwidth of a gigabit ethernet NIC.
> > > 
> > > Sorry, I tend to pick at nits, but, for the record, 1000/8 is 125
> > > Mb/s.  It doesn't (really) change your conclusions.
> > > 
> > > regards,
> > > Randy Kramer
> > 
> > You make an assumption many folks do, but theres a start bit and a stop
> > bit so the math is more like 1000/10=100 Mb/s.
> 
> 
> Well, 1000/8 is still 125 ;-) but I wouldn't have written back just to say 
> that.  Isn't it the case that there is something less than 1 start and 1 stop 
> for every byte--maybe like 1 stop bit for every several bytes?  (I am just 
> (slightly) curious.)
> 
> And, iirc, there are variations (which may be obsolete--I seem to remember one 
> protocol that had either 2 start or 2 stop bits?


Start/stop bits apply to async TIA-232.

Speaking very generally, 100Mb/s Ethernet actually operates at 125Mb/s; that includes the LAPB-like protocol that actually transmits the packets. All the layer 1 overhead goes in that extra 25Mb/s.

So, more correctly, you have data + TCP + IP overhead + L2 overhead: around 3% for full packets, higher for smaller packets. This is why 100Mb/s ethernet saturates at around 92%-95% *data* transmission. The rest is protocol overhead and delays (probably akin to RR and RNR).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#171973

On 09/09/2016 09:14 PM, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 09 Sep 2016 at 20:36:39 (-0700), David Christensen wrote:
>> So, 1048576900 bytes * 8 bits / byte / 76.024 seconds
>              ↑
> 
> What's this 9?

A typographical error.

104857600 bytes * 8 bits/byte / 76.024 seconds

= 11034158 bits/seconds


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#172026

On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 20:36:39 -0700
David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> wrote:

> On 09/09/2016 11:51 AM, Celejar wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 18:57:02 -0700
> > David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> >> My laptop has 802.11 a/b/g WiFi and Fast Ethernet.  Wireless data
> >> transfers are slow (~50 Mbps).  Wired is twice as fast (100 Mbps); still
> >> slow.  Newer WiFi (n, ac) should be faster, but only the newest WiFi
> >> hardware can match or beat Gigabit.
> > 
> > You get ~50Mbps over a/b/g? 54Mbps is the theoretical maximum, and
> > everything I've read says that 20-24Mbps is the real-world maximum.
> > 
> > Celejar
> > 
> 
> Benchmarking using WiFi (48 Mb/s):
> 
>     2016-09-09 20:18:51 dpchrist@t7400 ~
>     $ time dd if=/dev/urandom of=urandom.100M bs=1M count=100
>     100+0 records in
>     100+0 records out
>     104857600 bytes (105 MB) copied, 12.6709 s, 8.3 MB/s

...

>     2016-09-09 20:19:32 dpchrist@t7400 ~
>     $ time scp -p urandom.100M samba:.
>     urandom.100M
> 
> 
>                           100%  100MB   1.5MB/s   01:08
> 
>     real	1m16.023s
>     user	0m4.548s
>     sys	0m0.744s
> 
> 
> So, 1048576900 bytes * 8 bits / byte / 76.024 seconds
> 
> = 110341671 bits/second

So assuming that '9' is a typo, as per another message of yours in this
thread, your actual throughput is more like 11Mpbs, correct?

Celejar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#171958

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi, David.

Thanks for your reply.

On 09/08/16 22:57, David Christensen wrote:

>> As you can see, the transfer was over than 3 GB and it were not hung. I
>> did several tests and all were without problems.
>>
>> I wonder if in the mentioned episodes of hangs you remember whether the
>> transferred volume was higher or lower than in this case (or it hung
>> randomly).

> Script it and run it every night for a week.  If it works every time,
> try again for 30 days.  Then 90.  Then 365.

Yes, I have to start testing on a daily basis. Anyway, the mentioned
test results were quite satisfactory.

>> As a side note, the larger file (disk01.img) took more than 40 minutes
>> to be transferred. So the rsync was running quite some time without
>> hanging. While it does not have to do with the topic of this thread, in
>> rsync progress data we can see that the average transfer rate was 10
>> Mbps. I guess it will have to do with that I'm going through a wireless
>> network. In this testing the Debian computer is a notebook connected to
>> the wireless router and the KVM Windows is on the wired network. May it
>> be so large the decrease in transfer speed? The wireless router is
>> TPLink WDR3600 with OpenWRT.

> My laptop has 802.11 a/b/g WiFi and Fast Ethernet.  Wireless data
> transfers are slow (~50 Mbps).  Wired is twice as fast (100 Mbps); still
> slow.  Newer WiFi (n, ac) should be faster, but only the newest WiFi
> hardware can match or beat Gigabit.

I think it is reasonable to expect that the wireless transfer rate is
lower than the one obtained in a wired network. But there is a big
difference compared to the ~50 Mpbs you mentioned. The peak obtained
with rsync was 10 Mbps. Maybe the best is to take a metric with iperf,
what do you think?

> For the initial full backup, I have found that scp is faster than rsync.

It is likely, since rsync adds control information used by rsync
algorithm to track the synchronization.

> When I know that I've added a bunch of new and/or large files on the
> sender, I sometimes try the rsync 'whole-file' option.  As I haven't
> benchmarked it, I don't know if/when it is helping.
>
> My biggest problem with rsync is when I reorganize file/ directory trees
> on my file server; especially big stuff -- raw video, movies, disk
> images, ISO images, etc..  I have yet to figure out an rsync incantation
> that does the corresponding moves on the destination, rather than
> mindlessly copying and deleting 100's of GB.  I have often considered
> writing an rsync prelude script for just this case.

If you make a move of files, but always within the same root filesystem
provided to rsync, you might want to consider using --delete for get an
identical image in the source and destination.


Kind regards,
Daniel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#171969

On 09/09/2016 12:43 PM, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
> On 09/08/16 22:57, David Christensen wrote:
>> My laptop has 802.11 a/b/g WiFi and Fast Ethernet.  Wireless data
>> transfers are slow (~50 Mbps).  Wired is twice as fast (100 Mbps); still
>> slow.  Newer WiFi (n, ac) should be faster, but only the newest WiFi
>> hardware can match or beat Gigabit.
> 
> I think it is reasonable to expect that the wireless transfer rate is
> lower than the one obtained in a wired network. But there is a big
> difference compared to the ~50 Mpbs you mentioned. The peak obtained
> with rsync was 10 Mbps. Maybe the best is to take a metric with iperf,
> what do you think?

See the benchmark I just posted for 802.11g WiFi --  dm-crypt -> scp ->
dm-crypt, all without AES-NI --  110341671 bits/second.  Yuck.


>> My biggest problem with rsync is when I reorganize file/ directory trees
>> on my file server; especially big stuff ... I have yet to figure out an rsync incantation
>> that does the corresponding moves on the destination ...
> 
> If you make a move of files, but always within the same root filesystem
> provided to rsync, you might want to consider using --delete for get an
> identical image in the source and destination.

--delete is a different idea.  I'm thinking -y/--fuzzy.


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#172025

On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 20:43:44 -0700
David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> wrote:

> On 09/09/2016 12:43 PM, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
> > On 09/08/16 22:57, David Christensen wrote:
> >> My laptop has 802.11 a/b/g WiFi and Fast Ethernet.  Wireless data
> >> transfers are slow (~50 Mbps).  Wired is twice as fast (100 Mbps); still
> >> slow.  Newer WiFi (n, ac) should be faster, but only the newest WiFi
> >> hardware can match or beat Gigabit.
> > 
> > I think it is reasonable to expect that the wireless transfer rate is
> > lower than the one obtained in a wired network. But there is a big
> > difference compared to the ~50 Mpbs you mentioned. The peak obtained
> > with rsync was 10 Mbps. Maybe the best is to take a metric with iperf,
> > what do you think?
> 
> See the benchmark I just posted for 802.11g WiFi --  dm-crypt -> scp ->
> dm-crypt, all without AES-NI --  110341671 bits/second.  Yuck.

FTR: there seem to be more typos / here. The actual figure should be
11034157.6344 bits/second.

Celejar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#172027

On 09/10/2016 07:23 PM, Celejar wrote:
> FTR: there seem to be more typos / here. The actual figure should be
> 11034157.6344 bits/second.


Yes, let's whip those typos out of this dead horse some more:

On 09/09/2016 08:36 PM, David Christensen wrote:
> Benchmarking using WiFi (48 Mb/s):
>
>     2016-09-09 20:18:51 dpchrist@t7400 ~
>     $ time dd if=/dev/urandom of=urandom.100M bs=1M count=100
>     100+0 records in
>     100+0 records out
>     104857600 bytes (105 MB) copied, 12.6709 s, 8.3 MB/s
>
>     real	0m12.703s
>     user	0m0.000s
>     sys	0m12.481s
>
>     2016-09-09 20:19:32 dpchrist@t7400 ~
>     $ time scp -p urandom.100M samba:.
>     urandom.100M
>
>
>                           100%  100MB   1.5MB/s   01:08
>
>     real	1m16.023s
>     user	0m4.548s
>     sys	0m0.744s

2016-09-10 19:53:48 dpchrist@t7400 ~
$ perl -e 'print 104857600*8/76.023, "\n"'
11034302.7767912


On 09/09/2016 08:36 PM, David Christensen wrote:
> Testing again using Fast Ethernet (100 Mb/s):
>
>     2016-09-09 20:29:54 dpchrist@t7400 ~
>     $ time scp -p urandom.100M samba:.
>     urandom.100M
>
>
>                           100%  100MB   2.4MB/s   00:42
>
>     real	0m43.377s
>     user	0m4.476s
>     sys	0m0.876s

2016-09-10 19:54:43 dpchrist@t7400 ~
$ perl -e 'print 104857600*8/43.377, "\n"'
19338838.5549946


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170651

Le 02/08/2016 à 23:12, Daniel Bareiro a écrit :
[...]
> But to use Dirvish with Windows clients I will need to install an SSH
> server [...] on Windows.
[...]

Apart from a Cygwin solution, it seems there is an open official
Microsoft OpenSSH port (including SSHD service) effort:
 https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/powershell/2015/10/19/openssh-for-windows-update/
 https://github.com/PowerShell/Win32-OpenSSH/wiki

I cannot offer more precisions: I very rarely use both SSH and Windows

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170892

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi, Didier.

On 03/08/16 05:30, didier gaumet wrote:

>> But to use Dirvish with Windows clients I will need to install an SSH
>> server [...] on Windows.

> Apart from a Cygwin solution, it seems there is an open official
> Microsoft OpenSSH port (including SSHD service) effort:
>  https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/powershell/2015/10/19/openssh-for-windows-update/
>  https://github.com/PowerShell/Win32-OpenSSH/wiki
> 
> I cannot offer more precisions: I very rarely use both SSH and Windows

Thanks for the info. I will consider it in the case I see that the
Cygwin ssh server does not work satisfactorily or some other case.


Kind regards,
Daniel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170977

I recently upgraded a Windows 10 PC to the last 1607 build: with the
developper mode enabled, one have access to "windows subsystem for linux
(beta)". the official Microsoft port of Ubuntu bash.
sshd is part of the bundle (I've not tested it, though).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170979

https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/askpfeplat/2016/05/02/installing-bash-on-ubuntu-on-windows-10-insider-preview/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170836

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 06:12:33PM -0300, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
>Hi all!
>
>I'm thinking deploy a Debian backup server using Dirvish (which is based
>on rsync --- indeed, we have packaged it in Debian). On previous
>occasions I implemented these solutions seamlessly with GNU/Linux
>clients, but now I would like add Windows clients.
>
>The idea of using Dirvish is because I had a very good experience.
>Besides using rsync with hard links for backups of files that do not
>change from backup to the next allows a considerable saving of disk space.
>
>But to use Dirvish with Windows clients I will need to install an SSH
>server. I had thought that an alternative would be to use Cygwin, but
>was looking for documentation and I have not found any uniform process
>to install and configure a Cygwin SSH server on Windows.
>
>I would like to know if anyone has had any experience in this regard
>that could share.

Can I recommend BackupPC (also in Debian), which performs similar 
de-duplication to dirvish (hard links between identical files with 
optional compression as well), but can pull files from computers using 
rsync, ftp or, relevant to you, SMB. That is, it can backup Windows 
clients without any client software being installed on them.

Obviously, SMB will probably be slower than rsync as you'll need to pull 
every file every time, but you may find that's preferable to trying to 
get rsync installed on your Windows machines.

>
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Kind regards,
>Daniel
>



-- 
For more information, please reread.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170853

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi, Darac.

On 03/08/16 05:49, Darac Marjal wrote:

>> I'm thinking deploy a Debian backup server using Dirvish (which is based
>> on rsync --- indeed, we have packaged it in Debian). On previous
>> occasions I implemented these solutions seamlessly with GNU/Linux
>> clients, but now I would like add Windows clients.
>>
>> The idea of using Dirvish is because I had a very good experience.
>> Besides using rsync with hard links for backups of files that do not
>> change from backup to the next allows a considerable saving of disk
>> space.
>>
>> But to use Dirvish with Windows clients I will need to install an SSH
>> server. I had thought that an alternative would be to use Cygwin, but
>> was looking for documentation and I have not found any uniform process
>> to install and configure a Cygwin SSH server on Windows.
>>
>> I would like to know if anyone has had any experience in this regard
>> that could share.

> Can I recommend BackupPC (also in Debian), which performs similar
> de-duplication to dirvish (hard links between identical files with
> optional compression as well), but can pull files from computers using
> rsync, ftp or, relevant to you, SMB. That is, it can backup Windows
> clients without any client software being installed on them.
> 
> Obviously, SMB will probably be slower than rsync as you'll need to pull
> every file every time, but you may find that's preferable to trying to
> get rsync installed on your Windows machines.

Thanks for the recommendation. I hadn't the opportunity to use BackupPC,
but I will investigate it.

As I said in another message of this thread, I thought that an
alternative could be to mount on the Debian server the filesystem for
the Windows client using Samba and then doing rsync against the mount
point, but I'm not sure how efficient it can be. We also have security
implications as the backup server and the Windows computer are in
different offices, so the backup would be over the Internet.


Thanks for your reply.

Kind regards,
Daniel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170867

On 08/08/2016 01:05 PM, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
> We also have security
> implications as the backup server and the Windows computer are in
> different offices, so the backup would be over the Internet.

For security, you can use an SSH tunnel (Cygwin openssh on the Windows
machine).


Backing up over a WAN connection is only practical if your links are
fast and there isn't much data.  The same goes for verification,
restore, and archiving jobs.  Imaging is likely to be impractical.  I'd
consider building another backup machine and deploying it on the remote LAN.


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170873

On 08/08/2016 11:29 PM, David Christensen wrote:
> On 08/08/2016 01:05 PM, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
>> We also have security
>> implications as the backup server and the Windows computer are in
>> different offices, so the backup would be over the Internet.
>
> For security, you can use an SSH tunnel (Cygwin openssh on the Windows
> machine).
>
>
> Backing up over a WAN connection is only practical if your links are
> fast and there isn't much data.  The same goes for verification,
> restore, and archiving jobs.  Imaging is likely to be impractical.  I'd
> consider building another backup machine and deploying it on the remote LAN.
>
>
> David
>
>
I have done this many times. It is not that complicated.
On the Windows machine make sure you have Cygwin and ssh installed. On 
the Linux machine create the account for the Windows machine to store 
backups in. Use an easy password for now.

On the Windows machine at the Cygwin terminal type "ssh-keygen -t rsa". 
Next use "ssh-copy-id" to copy the key to the Linux machine. You will be 
asked for your password.

Now write a script to tar cfz everything up and scp it to the Linux 
machine. Not as elegant as rsync, but the idea is to have a backup, mots 
Win machines don't have one. Test you script. Once you are satisfied it 
create a batch file to call the script.

You have to set the actual "DOS" path to your cygwin stuff. I have 
pasted the actual lines from mine below:

SET PATH=C:\cygwin64\bin;D:\cygwin\bin;%PATH%
C:\cygwin64\bin\bash.exe D:\cygwin\home\mike\bin\wwwBackup.sh

Now set up a scheduled task to run it every day on the Windows machine 
and a cron on the Linux machine to delete them after so many days so 
they don't fill up the disk.

Mike

-- 
Mike McGinn		KD2CNU
President, UU Congregation at Rock Tavern * www.uucrt.org
Laziness is what separates us from the beavers.
More kidneys than eyes ** Registered Linux User 377849

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170856

> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 06:12:33PM -0300, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
>> Hi all!
>> 
>> I'm thinking deploy a Debian backup server using Dirvish (which is based
>> on rsync --- indeed, we have packaged it in Debian). On previous
>> occasions I implemented these solutions seamlessly with GNU/Linux
>> clients, but now I would like add Windows clients.
>> 
>> The idea of using Dirvish is because I had a very good experience.
>> Besides using rsync with hard links for backups of files that do not
>> change from backup to the next allows a considerable saving of disk space.
>> 
>> But to use Dirvish with Windows clients I will need to install an SSH
>> server. I had thought that an alternative would be to use Cygwin, but
>> was looking for documentation and I have not found any uniform process
>> to install and configure a Cygwin SSH server on Windows.

Have you tried Putty? I know next to nothing about Windows, but I've seen Putty discussed like it does SSH seriously.

Dirvish, I think, is a good backup package. It creates backups that can be handled with plain *nix software if you lose the backup software. Like Amanda.

-- 
Glenn English

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170865

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi, Glenn.

On 08/08/16 18:34, Glenn English wrote:

>>> I'm thinking deploy a Debian backup server using Dirvish (which is based
>>> on rsync --- indeed, we have packaged it in Debian). On previous
>>> occasions I implemented these solutions seamlessly with GNU/Linux
>>> clients, but now I would like add Windows clients.
>>>
>>> The idea of using Dirvish is because I had a very good experience.
>>> Besides using rsync with hard links for backups of files that do not
>>> change from backup to the next allows a considerable saving of disk space.
>>>
>>> But to use Dirvish with Windows clients I will need to install an SSH
>>> server. I had thought that an alternative would be to use Cygwin, but
>>> was looking for documentation and I have not found any uniform process
>>> to install and configure a Cygwin SSH server on Windows.

> Have you tried Putty? I know next to nothing about Windows, but I've seen
> Putty discussed like it does SSH seriously.

I'm not sure if I understand your idea. I know that Putty is an SSH
client used mostly in Windows but there are also versions for GNU/Linux
(also in the Debian repositories).

In this case the idea is to initiate the connection from the Debian
server to the Windows server, to bring the files to the Debian server.
This connection would be via Internet, as both are not on the same local
network.

The idea would be to use an automatic process, with a secure connection
in the extent of the possibilities.

> Dirvish, I think, is a good backup package. It creates backups that can be
> handled with plain *nix software if you lose the backup software. Like
> Amanda.

I had mentioned to use Dirvish because it is what I use to doing backup
with GNU/Linux clients. In this way I would have a backup homogeneous
solution, which would facilitate the maintenance.

I will try to do some tests locally with Windows 2012 and Cygwin, using
rsync + ssh. The alternative would be to use Samba to access the Windows
filesystem as if it was local to the Debian server, then doing rsync to
the mount point. But it doesn't convince me from the point of view of
security to have with Samba access through Internet. Any comment about this?


Thanks for your interest.

Kind regards,
Daniel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170898

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Best options is put an SMB/NFS share for all the windows clients on your
backup server.

RAID it and run $whatever backup tools you wish on the exports.

If you need OS level backups, the best way is to use ISCSI mounts served
from the NAS/SAN to be the root of the windows machines.

On 3 August 2016 at 09:12, Daniel Bareiro <daniel-listas@gmx.net> wrote:

> Hi all!
>
> I'm thinking deploy a Debian backup server using Dirvish (which is based
> on rsync --- indeed, we have packaged it in Debian). On previous
> occasions I implemented these solutions seamlessly with GNU/Linux
> clients, but now I would like add Windows clients.
>
> The idea of using Dirvish is because I had a very good experience.
> Besides using rsync with hard links for backups of files that do not
> change from backup to the next allows a considerable saving of disk space.
>
> But to use Dirvish with Windows clients I will need to install an SSH
> server. I had thought that an alternative would be to use Cygwin, but
> was looking for documentation and I have not found any uniform process
> to install and configure a Cygwin SSH server on Windows.
>
> I would like to know if anyone has had any experience in this regard
> that could share.
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Kind regards,
> Daniel
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web