Results 1 to 25 of 45
-
06-07-2009, 07:03 PM #1Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
- Posts
- 1,682
Is R1Soft CDP Backup really good?
I am currently moving my accounts to providers that use R1Soft as a backup solution. This is a security measure, but I am planning to use it as a marketing point too.
An after purchasing a backup account from Steadfast that includes support for R1Soft (and learning to use it), I am planning to resell their product.
Those ideas sound good, but is R1Soft software really as good as it looks like? Some years ago i had a problem with a very known (and trustable) VPS provider. After having a hard disk crash, they told that their Virtuozzo based backups weren't reliable, so I lost some data.
-
06-07-2009, 11:22 PM #2Randy
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Ashburn VA, San Diego CA
- Posts
- 4,615
R1soft is good, but its only as good as the provider who manages the CDP server/client for you.
Fast Serv Networks, LLC | AS29889 | DDOS Protected | Managed Cloud, Streaming, Dedicated Servers, Colo by-the-U
Since 2003 - Ashburn VA + San Diego CA Datacenters
-
06-07-2009, 11:24 PM #3The Linux Specialist
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- /root
- Posts
- 23,981
Yes, it is better than any other backup software.
But please note that in order to backup a vps, it should be done in the main node. It will not work in vps client only.
Specially 4 U
Reseller Hosting: Boost Your Websites | Fully Managed KVM VPS: 3.20 - 5.00 Ghz, Pure Dedicated Power
JoneSolutions.Com is on the net 24/7 providing stable and reliable web hosting solutions, server management and services since 2001
Debian|Ubuntu|cPanel|DirectAdmin|Enhance|Webuzo|Acronis|Estela|BitNinja|Nginx
-
06-08-2009, 01:18 AM #4Disabled
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Posts
- 256
Yeah, it is the most reliable backup software . It is recommended due to its low resource utilization, data security and near-continuous backup features.
-
06-08-2009, 08:59 AM #5Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Posts
- 50
clarification
This is true only for Virtuozzo and OpenVZ on Linux.
To see how R1Soft works with other Virtualization see:
http://www.r1soft.com/windows-cdp/cdp-server-20/vms/
and
http://www.r1soft.com/linux-cdp/cdp-server-20/vms/
For a list of R1Soft hosting partners see:
http://www.r1soft.com/hosting-partners/find-partners/
Regards,
-David Wartell
-R1Soft Founder
-
06-08-2009, 09:31 AM #6Randy
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Ashburn VA, San Diego CA
- Posts
- 4,615
R1soft cannot yet back up a XenServer dom0 (main node). I have a ticket open for almost 6 months I think now. Did you guys finally give up on it David?
Fast Serv Networks, LLC | AS29889 | DDOS Protected | Managed Cloud, Streaming, Dedicated Servers, Colo by-the-U
Since 2003 - Ashburn VA + San Diego CA Datacenters
-
06-08-2009, 11:31 AM #7Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Posts
- 50
Please tell me more
What is your issue number? What is your specific issue with running the CDP Agent in the dom0 hardware node?
I am not aware of anything keeping you from running a backup in Xen dom0 hardware node except it is not at all ideal and we also don't recommend it at all.
Here is why:
1) When you run the backup in the dom0 hardware node there is no way to snapshot the file system on your virtual disks inside the domU VMs. So if you run a backup from the hardware node your virtual disks will be corrupt. The
This is why we ask customers to install the agent inside of domU VMs so the Agent can make a perfect snapshot of the domU file system.
2) Let's say you are a wild west gunslinger and backup from the dom0 hardware node anyways and don't care about quiesced files system in domUs. You will have no way to restore individual domU files. You need to install the Agent inside of the dumU for that.
3) I would suspect the only motivation for backing up the dom0 hardware node is to get a backup of the hardware node O/S and configuration for disaster recovery.
If you ignore the problems with 1 & 2 of this what you really want is to backup everything except the domU virtual disk files. This can be done with CDP 2 if your virtual disk files are on a separate partition or volume from the hardware node O/S files.
CDP 2 can enable or disable backups on a partition or file system basis. CDP 3 will soon make this easier even if you don't have the virtual disks on different partitions as you can exclude the virtual disk files or the directory containing them from the dom0 backups.
* I am also aware of an issue where XenSource 5 appears to not be able to compile any device drivers for the dom0 as its development package is perhaps missing kernel header files needed to compile. We are still investigating that... its really a Xen issue we are trying to workaround.
Is this the issue you are having?
-
06-08-2009, 11:36 AM #8Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Posts
- 50
-
06-09-2009, 10:35 PM #9Randy
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Ashburn VA, San Diego CA
- Posts
- 4,615
Yes that is the issue we have. Regardless of whether you feel backup of dom0 is something you recommend or not, it is simply not possible to compile the backup agent on any version of XenServer. That means both version 4 and 5 is a no go for R1soft.
I agree that it is best to back up each domU rather than the dom0. But there are many reasons we back up dom0 (on other systems such as open source xen which r1soft supports) IN ADDITION to domU instances where customers are willing to pay for their own r1soft instance.
1. So we don't have to manually recreate dom0 and every domU config (duh)
2. Buagent licensing for every domU is expensive. You don't have cheaper prices for VM installation like Microsoft, Cpanel, DA, ect.
3. Redundancy. Two backups is better than one.
4. Since when do you guarantee that a restored server will not have a corrupt filesystem that requires an fsck? Every server I have ever restored required an fsck or chkdisk on first reboot (and actually finds errors) indicating it was not a clean backup such as you would suggest.Last edited by FastServ; 06-09-2009 at 10:39 PM.
Fast Serv Networks, LLC | AS29889 | DDOS Protected | Managed Cloud, Streaming, Dedicated Servers, Colo by-the-U
Since 2003 - Ashburn VA + San Diego CA Datacenters
-
06-10-2009, 04:15 PM #10Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Posts
- 50
RE:
Your reasons for backing up dom0 make sense
Regarding the fsck:
2.4 or 2.6 Linux?
* If you had not rebooted in 180 days by default then fsck would happen on next boot.
* You could easily have errors in file system that would not be caused by the backup process.
* The file system will still show as unclean shutdown because it will be imaged with the flag that it is mounted. Other than the mounted flag being set in super block... it will be consistent. This triggers a fsck as it looks like an unclean shutdown.
We use a Linux kernel Virtual File System freeze() and thaw() and that is guaranteed to provide consistent file system in 2.6 Linux.
There is no freeze and t haw in 2.4 Linux. In 2.4 Linux we use queisce process where we sync file system and wait for no disk writes which makes file system as good if you did sync then power off.Last edited by david-r1soft; 06-10-2009 at 04:19 PM.
-
06-10-2009, 04:33 PM #11Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Posts
- 50
More on Freezing File Systems in Linux
Here are some brief docs on the internal bdev (block device) function freeze_bdev and is how the CDP driver freezes file system in 2.6 Linux.
Its a VFS layer function that can be called on any mounted block device and since its VFS layer it works on all file systems. Someone ported the locking functionality from XFS to the VFS layer so it works on all file systems.
http://kerneltrap.org/man/linux/man9/freeze_bdev.9
This has been available since early 2.6 kernel... starting 2.6.8 if I recall correctly.
BTW of note... recently these have been exposed via a userland IOCTL call... I believe starting in 2.6.29.
When we do bare-metal restores we normally see the unclean shutdown warning afterwards... this is completely normal. We don't see any errors though unless the file system had errors unrelated to the backup process.
One thing we were able to improve upon in CDP 3 for Linux is that we always mount and unmount the frozen file system for processing excludes e.g. files/folders you want to exclude from the backup.
In doing that the file system snapshot gets to be unmounted cleanly so you won't even see the unclean shutdown warning with CDP 3.
Another nice side effect is that later in CDP 3 we will be able to very easily run fsck on the snapshot for you as an option tot he backup policy on Linux. This allows you to fix problems in the file system so they do not show up in the backup image without ever shutting your server down.
-David Wartell
-R1Soft Founder
-
06-10-2009, 04:49 PM #12Disabled
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,455
R1Soft is good at what is does. Im using if for years. Its perfect for hosting servers. Is it the best? Well that depends on many factors. Is is good? Yes.
As far as your Virtuozzo issue, thats not a R1Soft but Virtuozzo. Virtuozzo is just plain bad, its not really virtualization, so not any backup solution will help you there. You can probably backup the whole virtual file but since Virtuozzo is more a chrooted OS its not a real virtualized server with its own disks.
You will have problems with Virtuozzo regarless if you use R1Soft or not. I would suggest using it on the node directly and backing up all data with VMs inclusive, since you cannot use it to backup single VMs in Virtuozzo, since like I said, virtuozzo is not really a virtual server like Xen or VMware is. It just emulates one.
As for Xen R1Soft is plain slow and it doesnt work as well. I still did not tried it on VmWare. But it still works.
I think R1Soft works at the best on real servers. I use it on virtual servers and even the backup server is virtualized but there is some work there to be done. Example. You have to install agents with a modified kernel on XenServer and it sometimes slows so down that it freezes the server.
Regarding your question, go for it. I like R1Soft and they are overall a good solution if used inside the same Datacenter or LAN. Dont even think of using it for remote servers since the performance suffers allot. Its not made for that. Its made for using it on the same DC, LAN or Rack.
-
06-10-2009, 05:00 PM #13Disabled
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
- A box
- Posts
- 2,051
R1Soft works great and does what it does amazingly well. It's saved our butt more times then we can count. It's fast and efficient. I'd highly recommend it.
-
06-10-2009, 07:35 PM #14Randy
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Ashburn VA, San Diego CA
- Posts
- 4,615
Any plans to offer some sort of vm pricing? Right now its not cost effective to consume 10-20 buagent licenses for one physical machine. If we could backup all the domu's for the same cost as a single dom0, I'd be more than happy to let the dom0 backup issue slide!
Fast Serv Networks, LLC | AS29889 | DDOS Protected | Managed Cloud, Streaming, Dedicated Servers, Colo by-the-U
Since 2003 - Ashburn VA + San Diego CA Datacenters
-
06-10-2009, 07:43 PM #15Disabled
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,455
There is not need to consume 10-20 agents per server. Ones your client you can buy just the licenses you need. That means add 1 extra license only for one server if you need more.
You can use agents on different servers, no need to use them on a single server. There is a minimum license order but that makes sense. Its not business just to sell 1 agent. If that is the case your better with a provider providing R1Soft services.
I think their minimum is 5 license with the starter package which is very affordable.
If what you mean is using 1 agent per VM on XenServer, thats your choice. You can use 1 agent per VM or 1 Agent directly on the dom0 and backup the full server. But if there is a restore you will not be able to restore just 1 VM but you will need to restore the full node. I used 1 agent per VM but there is not limitation just to use 1 agent per node, in that case you install it directly on dom0 but thats against good use norms of virtualization. You should not install anything on domu, that means anything at all. Because of security and upgrades. DomU should not be used as a server, but just as a domain controller without modifications. But I know some people do install things, like backup agents on dom0, the costs like you said will be cheaper but the level of protection will as well.Last edited by nibb; 06-10-2009 at 07:47 PM.
-
06-11-2009, 10:18 AM #16Randy
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Ashburn VA, San Diego CA
- Posts
- 4,615
If what you mean is using 1 agent per VM on XenServer, thats your choice. You can use 1 agent per VM or 1 Agent directly on the dom0 and backup the full server. But if there is a restore you will not be able to restore just 1 VM but you will need to restore the full node. I used 1 agent per VM but there is not limitation just to use 1 agent per node, in that case you install it directly on dom0 but thats against good use norms of virtualization. You should not install anything on domu, that means anything at all. Because of security and upgrades. DomU should not be used as a server, but just as a domain controller without modifications. But I know some people do install things, like backup agents on dom0, the costs like you said will be cheaper but the level of protection will as well.
R1soft has not yet created a binary that is compatible due to 'missing headers' or something like that.Fast Serv Networks, LLC | AS29889 | DDOS Protected | Managed Cloud, Streaming, Dedicated Servers, Colo by-the-U
Since 2003 - Ashburn VA + San Diego CA Datacenters
-
06-11-2009, 12:00 PM #17Disabled
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,455
Really? I wonder what was then what I installed on a Citrix node for testing? As far as I remember it WAS R1Soft Agent and it worked. If your not aware about the Dom0 is just a Red Hat modified OS so there is absolutely no way why it would not work since its just a normal OS controller. You can also use Solaris and NetBSD or any other Linux OS as Dom0. In the case of Citrix XenServer if my memory severs me right the Citrix Staff told me it was a Red Hat OS.
YOU CAN install it. But in case of a restore you will need to restore the full server. Thats what I said and that is what will work. David from R1Soft just said the same thing that you cannot restore individual VMs which is what I said.
If you think it doesnt work then please try it yourself and see, test and proof yourself that the agent CAN be installed and IT WILL work. Will it work good? No. But it does work. So how can my argument be moot when someone from R1Soft said the same thing I tested myself on a server?
-
06-11-2009, 11:53 PM #18Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Colombia
- Posts
- 69
Im using R1soft for backup one OpenVz server and other linux and windows servers. The software is good but is very important that you test it and learn how it works before you need to restore a production server. You need to do bare metal restores test, you need to know how much time will take a restore and how much time will take a initial backup, what happpen if you modify something in your partition table, what if you change the names of your partitions from sdx to hdx, for example. And its very important that you take care your CPD server, check the logs check every day if the backup finished good, check the sanity of the disks, etc.
█ Jose David Bravo | jbravo[at]colombiahosting.com.co
█ ColombiaHosting High Quality Hosting in Colombia
█ www.colombiahosting.com.co
-
06-12-2009, 06:46 AM #19Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- World Wide Web
- Posts
- 581
I feel R1soft provides a better backup, the only con that I could find was the ownership of the restored files was incorrect.
SupportExpertz.com - the name says it all!
Managed Cloud Servers
Server Management and Monitoring
24x7 outsourced customer support
-
06-12-2009, 09:50 AM #20Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Posts
- 50
RE: File Permissions Incorrect
Is this your issue?
http://wiki.r1soft.com/x/FBpE
SRV-779 Linux Restores - Root Owned Folders
Linux Agent 1.58.0 is incorrectly restoring the children of root owned directories as root:root
Available Workarounds
Upgrade to Linux Agent 1.58.1
Resolution Status Fixed
Fixed in Release 2.12.1
-
06-12-2009, 10:58 AM #21Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- World Wide Web
- Posts
- 581
yes..that is the only issue that I have come across..Thanks for the info David.
SupportExpertz.com - the name says it all!
Managed Cloud Servers
Server Management and Monitoring
24x7 outsourced customer support
-
06-12-2009, 04:20 PM #22Hosting Billing Master
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- California, USA, Earth
- Posts
- 1,098
R1Soft has worked well for us, can't wait for 3.0.
I did have a problem though which was unrelated to CDP, but our CDP server went into read-only mode and I had to manually run fsck. I realize there are probably other tools, but if the CDP could send out an email notice if it runs into trouble that would be great. Had a 2 week window with no backups, I'm glad nothing went wrong.
-
06-12-2009, 04:22 PM #23Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Posts
- 50
Simply Configure Email Reporting
Simply Configure Email Reporting
http://wiki.r1soft.com/x/2AAY
-David Wartell
-R1Soft Founder
-
06-12-2009, 04:30 PM #24Hosting Billing Master
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- California, USA, Earth
- Posts
- 1,098
-
06-19-2009, 07:14 PM #25Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Posts
- 1,405
Be careful w/R1Soft, we had far to many issues to even think about using it ever again and we are not the only one: http://forum.r1soft.com/showthread.php?t=1085
Do your research before you buy. We are finding rsync is 8x as fast and at least you have open file access if for some reason R1's restore feature does not work in a stable release, which occurred with us. We were simply told to wait to the next release, while needing to make a restore.
I tried to talk w/David (R1's founder) today but, he just says to wait to the next v3.0 as it will fix everything, which is months away, and is the same thing we were told when we were having tons of issues with version 1.0, and we were dumb enough to wait around last time, but not this time around.
Hopefully no one makes the same mistake as we have.