Of course but here the subject is about a ready to use solution provided by i-MSCP involving one server only. We all argue since years that a backup solution should be something managed out of i-MSCP but most users don't listen us and want an integrated solution. You cannot also imagine the number of users which are using i-MSCP on a single server (even worse, on a single VPS)..
You are right about that, of course. There is loads of software standard on Linux to create backups, but ... (I"d rather not say it)
There is nothing wrong with using i-mscp on a single server, or VPS, when you don't have paying customers, like me. But I see a lot of users making money with professional hosting, letting customers pay, but they themselves want a free ride. Or even worse, are running some sort of hosting company without having any, or little, knowledge about the OS, the server(s) and anything else they use. It is nice that you integrate some sort of backup, but it shouldn't be inside i-mscp beyond a very basic level. I hope I didn't insult anyone
Awesome! But I really think we should use duplicity. I mean, it's done by the rdiff guys and uses rdiffdir for part of it, just is better all-around.
"All the code here is GPLed (free software). Duplicity is also part of the Fedora,Debian, and Ubuntu distributions of GNU/Linux."
rdiff has shortcomings and isn't efficient with compression. duplicity will also allow people to restore to certain times or fetch a full backup of a certain time, and we can easily set retention time by reseller/customer/hosting package. everything compressed, using rsync for minimal processing.
since I moved to Germany I lost all my other hobbies, so I have time and can help, Nux.
I just have a few questions MGAV:
1) What compression type are you using for the backup? (grep -i 'zip =' /etc/imscp/imscp.conf
2) How large are the sites, those you are doing backup of?
3) What machines are you running i-MSCP on?
The reason I am asking, is because it sounds like you might have chosen a wrong compression type, that does not met your server specifications. I have a few servers with some rather large sites, and these have no issues with backup, CPU/IO wise.
Don't take this wrong, I am all for a new backup system for i-MSCP. I use duplicity myself for remote backup, it works perfectly.
This is from one of my private virtual servers running i-MSCP:
root@HOST:~# grep -i 'zip = ' /etc/imscp/imscp.conf
ZIP = pbzip2
root@HOST:~# ls -la /var/www/virtual/ | wc -l
root@HOST:~# du -cms /var/www/virtual/* | sort -nr | head
The backup for this specific server takes around 1 hour.
First of all... I like i-MSCP a lot! Mostly because it was easy to setup and maintain. I do not have the knowledge to do deep linux settings and therefore i-MSCP was e real good choice for me/us. My main focus in my daily work is programming concrete5 sites.
About how i-MSCP is setup ZIP wise, I can only say standard. I installed i-MSCP and that is it. What you here write is new for me. We are running about 40 sites that is average 200Mb in size (around 15000 files per site). I am sorry to say that of today we actually moved to new server systems (not because of i-MSCP) because the server hosting company we used did not hold there end of the contract.
Our develop server is still running i-MSCP with 40 sites and we will keep doing this for a long time (because I like i-MSCP and want to support it. That's why I decided to translate the whole thing - and still doing so).
The fun part is that the develop server is running very good (even now with 1.2.2 where I found a few bugs).
@MGAV thanks for the reply. I did not expect an answer as I actually didn't notice when you posted this thread (Quite some time ago).
Sad to hear you've skipped i-MSCP production wise. If you wish to return to i-MSCP, drop me a pm (you are welcome to write in Danish) and I can give you some recommendations on decent providers.