> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:44:03 -0700 > From: "Kyle Marsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] need help managing disk configuration > To: bacula-users <bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net> > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> While this debate on the various merits of RaidN vs. RaidX is > interesting and helpful, I don't believe it is what Scott was asking > about. > He was asking how one should configure Bacula to make the best > use of his space. I looked at the example in the manual, here: > http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/Automated_Disk_Backup.html, but it > seems that is simply an example -- as far as I can tell it only works > for a single client and is not easily scalable, which in impractical. > Tell me if I'm wrong. I'm not exactly sure where you get the above ideas, because I don't believe they are correct -- as you requested, I'm telling you :-) Yes, it is an example, but an example of a *real* installation that has been running without intervention since 19 July 2004 (the exception is that I have upgraded Bacula from time to time, and I had to add a harddisk after the first year as their data volume temporarily doubled). Thought the example is only for a single client, I'm not sure why you say it works with one. To the best of my knowledge there is no such limitation. Depending on the backup volume you may need to use different Volumes sizes and a different number of Volumes. The scheme has *absolutely* nothing making it inherently single client. Concerning scalability: As with anything, if you double the size, it is probably no problem, but if you multiply by 10 there may be additional factors that come it -- for example, I am using SQLite2 (a very old version) and anything more serious (in terms of volume) I would use MySQL or PostgeSQL. As such this scheme has plenty of room to scale. Up to about 50 machines, I could imagine just adding more disk (and the db change I mentioned). Beyond that, one would likely need to make other adjustments that would be made no matter what scheme one chooses. There are many different ways to handle disk backups (with/without pools, different schedules of Full/differential/incremental, ...). The *working* example I gave in the manual is only one way to do it, but it does work. I hope I have dispelled any ideas that there is any fundamental limitations to the scheme -- though after 3 years of continuous running, I could probably find a few tweaks to make it better ... Oh yes, and once someone blew away his whole home directory while I was on vacation. I got a call on my mobile, and in ten minutes they had the directory back. Regards, Kern > I got advice from Arno Lehman suggesting that I estimate the amount of > space needed per pool and set up the pool to handle that amount of > data using limits on volume size and number of volumes. My reply was > sent out with the wrong address so the list moderator ate it and I > haven't resent it to ask my clarifying questions. > I too wonder what would be a reasonable volume size given various pool > sizes (I'm thinking about one pool for each level of backups with its > own retention times running off the basic monthly cycle that comes > preconfigured). > Thank you, > ~Kyle Marsh ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
