Travis L. Bean
2004-Mar-31 03:53 UTC
How to RSYNC from eth1 on PDC-SRV to eth1 on BDC-SRV?
I currently have my /home directory kept in sync between my primary and backup domain controllers by using rsync --archive --checksum --update --delete pdc-srv:/home/ bdc-srv:/home/. I noticed that when this command is invoked, it tends to suck up the available bandwith to eth0 during the duration that the pdc is sending a large amount of data packets to the bdc. So what I would like to do is install a second 1000BASE-T network adapter on both the pdc and bdc and link them together with a crossover cable. Then when I invoke rsync, the data stream would only travel from eth1 on the pdc to eth1 on the bdc and not take up bandwidth on eth0. Is this possible? I have already spent hours on Google.com searching, and I have not found an answer. I am not highly-skilled at setting up advanced routing, so I am not sure how to accomplish this task and do not know if it is even possible. Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated. Travis L. Bean Systems Administrator Bio-Logic Aqua Technologies Grants Pass, OR - United States
Hergaarden, Marcel
2004-Mar-31 11:18 UTC
How to RSYNC from eth1 on PDC-SRV to eth1 on BDC-SRV?
Hi Travis, In my opinion you should not use the hostname like bdc-srv:/home but instead the IP adres of the gigabit interface. The hostname will resolve to the eth1 address. Instead you should try something like: rsync --archive --checksum --update --delete 192.168.1.1:/home/ 192.168.1.2:/home/. That should do the job. Change the private IP-range to your situation. Marcel Hergaarden -----Original Message----- From: rsync-bounces+marcel.hergaarden=getronics.com@lists.samba.org [mailto:rsync-bounces+marcel.hergaarden=getronics.com@lists.samba.org] On Behalf Of Travis L. Bean Sent: woensdag 31 maart 2004 5:53 To: rsync@lists.samba.org Subject: How to RSYNC from eth1 on PDC-SRV to eth1 on BDC-SRV? I currently have my /home directory kept in sync between my primary and backup domain controllers by using rsync --archive --checksum --update --delete pdc-srv:/home/ bdc-srv:/home/. I noticed that when this command is invoked, it tends to suck up the available bandwith to eth0 during the duration that the pdc is sending a large amount of data packets to the bdc. So what I would like to do is install a second 1000BASE-T network adapter on both the pdc and bdc and link them together with a crossover cable. Then when I invoke rsync, the data stream would only travel from eth1 on the pdc to eth1 on the bdc and not take up bandwidth on eth0. Is this possible? I have already spent hours on Google.com searching, and I have not found an answer. I am not highly-skilled at setting up advanced routing, so I am not sure how to accomplish this task and do not know if it is even possible. Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated. Travis L. Bean Systems Administrator Bio-Logic Aqua Technologies Grants Pass, OR - United States -- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
The question is incongruous, in light of the title, but: install the cards. get them recognized and configured. connect them, perhaps with a crossover cable (ethernet nullmodem). configure them with addresses and netmask - since this is a point-to-point, no external routability is needed - I suggest 192.168.0.0/31. Name them, in /etc/hosts, as this isn't going to be dynamic data, nor shared to other systems. Don't name them the same as the primary hostname. Make each the route to the other. Example: pdc has eth1 configured at 192.168.0.0, named pdc-eth1, and bdc has eth1 configured at 192.168.0.1, named bdc-eth1, both with netmask 255.255.255.254. On pdc - "route add host bdc-eth1 eth1" On bdc - "route add host pdc-eth1 eth1" Use the "-eth1" hostname in the source or destination of the rsync commandline. Or, you can leave off the naming and just use raw IP addresses. BTW: You'll find that a crossover cable runs extremely fast, as there is no resource sharing in the transport. Your dedicated 100bT channel may actually be FASTER than the shared gig-e. Another caveat: You mention advanced routing. You may run into an issue wherein your Gig-E interfaces tell each other that they're better routes to the eth1 addresses. THAT's an advanced routing thing, and I'm not certain how to force system's IP stacks to segregate ARPing. Good luck, Tim Conway Unix System Administration Contractor - IBM Global Services desk:3032734776 conway@us.ibm.com hours on Google.com searching, and I have not found an answer. I am not highly-skilled at setting up advanced routing, so I am not sure how to accomplish this task and do not know if it is even possible. Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated. Travis L. Bean Systems Administrator Bio-Logic Aqua Technologies Grants Pass, OR - United States -- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html