On 10/6/2011 8:35 AM, Ben Walton wrote: > Excerpts from shouldbe q931's message of Thu Oct 06 07:10:54 -0400 2011: > >> With most active/passive paired servers that I have implemented, >> backup is run on the "passive" server and is the primary recovery >> source. > Yes, that's where I was headed. I guess that I probably wasn't clear > that I was asking more for bacula best practices with such a setup > than overall practices (eg: policy). Sorry for not being clear. > > Is it even sane to point bacula at the shared ip and treat the two > systems as three clients? > >> You mention having a shared IP, for "clustered" systems, I would >> probably look to have a more frequent sync than daily unless you can >> "replace" the daily "changes" via a different method. > This won't be a clustered system as the failover is meant for rapid > recovery not "no data loss." (We are running drbd with corosync for > other situations, but that doesn't fit in this case.) The shared IP > in this instance is just so that a name can move between the systems > if required. The sync interval could be more frequent, but the point > is that it's not real-time.
Why not add an ethernet alias interface to the passive system and back up only the passive system through the alias IP address? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy1 _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
