Difference between revisions of "Wikispooks talk:Site Backup"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→IMPORTANT request to improve backups: new section) |
m (reply) |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
How about GZipping the daily .sql dump? This should reduce it by about 2/3 - making for a much easier download. [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 02:00, 5 January 2014 (GMT) | How about GZipping the daily .sql dump? This should reduce it by about 2/3 - making for a much easier download. [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 02:00, 5 January 2014 (GMT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | :Agreed. I too have been mulling backups. I think it would also be better to provide just the SQL dump and the /images directory structure. That would obviate the need to provide the entire suite of MW and its extensions and remove any risk associated with LocalSettings.php. We would need to adjust the instructions a bit so that info about which extensions were mandatory + current version info etc, but it would further reduce both backup size and content complexity. I'll have a look. We'll no doubt need to tweek your script. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 09:38, 5 January 2014 (GMT) |
Revision as of 09:38, 5 January 2014
Site Backup discussion
Backup Size
I just checked and found the backup expanded from about 2.5GB to 5GB. How come? Have we really been submitted that much material? Or is the backup scrip not working as in should? Robin (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2013 (GMT)
IMPORTANT request to improve backups
How about GZipping the daily .sql dump? This should reduce it by about 2/3 - making for a much easier download. Robin (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2014 (GMT)
- Agreed. I too have been mulling backups. I think it would also be better to provide just the SQL dump and the /images directory structure. That would obviate the need to provide the entire suite of MW and its extensions and remove any risk associated with LocalSettings.php. We would need to adjust the instructions a bit so that info about which extensions were mandatory + current version info etc, but it would further reduce both backup size and content complexity. I'll have a look. We'll no doubt need to tweek your script. --Peter P (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2014 (GMT)