After using Bacula for close to a decade with a tape autochanger, I'm slightly lost with ideas related to disk-based backup I'm now trying to implement.
Now I have a fersh test install of Bacula 7.0.5, on CentOS 7. Bacula comes from EPEL repo. The supplied example conf files define a "virtual autochanger", that refers to two "storage devices" that both actually write to same directory (/tmp in the example). While wondering the need for this arrangement, I've figured out that this may be to help simultaneous backup/restore jobs run smoothly. However, in my relatively small environment it makes things look complicated if I define every storage this way. Is the suggested way of using a virtual autochanger a must to make things work at all, or is it a way how to avoid problems in a big environment where may be a lot of simultaneous backup and restore jobs? I have about 5 servers to back up, I'll have the backups running in the nighttime, probably not concurrently at all. If and when there will be a need for a restore job, it will be a single restore run in the daytime. So no more than a single job at a time. Will there be any problem in this case, if I try to simplify the conf files and drop away the "autochanger" and one of the two "storage devices" it refers to, and just had a single "storage device" per each media type? (My goal is to use 2-3 media types, all disks, but disks will be located in physically different locations to increase fire/vandalism safety, besides disk faults. Since every media type will require a separate storage definition, the number of virtual autochanger definitions would multiply correspondingly...) Regards, Timo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users