Ah, yet another good argument for a single directory installation :-) Thanks, Kern
On 11/28/2016 07:25 PM, Josh Fisher wrote: > > On 11/28/2016 12:43 PM, Kern Sibbald wrote: >> Hello Josip, >> >> Well for end users such as myself, I do consider having Bacula all over >> your system a problem. First, if I want to bring up a new version, I >> simply do: >> >> cp -a /opt/bacula /opt/old-bacula >> save the database >> >> then install a new version. If something goes wrong, it is easy to roll >> back to the previous version. In addition, when saving the database >> dump every evening, I have Bacula backup the database dump plus >> everything in /opt/bacula with the exclusion of a few directories such >> as /opt/bacula/working, ... > > I would add that the single directory approach is essential when > running Bacula daemons in a high availability environment where all of > the Bacula files must be on shared storage available to multiple > cluster nodes. The cluster config is far simpler when there is only a > single device and filesystem involved during a failover. When the > files are scattered across the system, they are usually also scattered > across multiple filesystems. In order to use Simone's RHEL RPMs, I > have had to create numerous symlinks and force the files to live on a > single shared storage device, (a DRBD device in this case). I, for > one, welcome a RPM with everything in /opt/bacula. That said, Simone's > work with RHEL RPMs has been greatly appreciated. > > >> In case of an emergency, it is then easy to get back the database and >> all of Bacula including the conf files very easily. The same can be >> done when the Bacula files are sprayed all over your system, bit >> generally, you either need to do a big backup or you need to know >> exactly what files to backup and where they are. It is easy to forget >> one, especially if you upgrade and we release a new file or you decide >> to modify mtx-changer or something ... >> >> That said, you are free to do it your way :-) >> >> Best regards, >> Kern >> >> On 11/28/2016 01:10 PM, Josip Deanovic wrote: >>> On Monday 2016-11-28 11:56:25 Jaime Ferrer Hepp wrote: >>>> Thanks Josip, I 'll take a look into it. Mainly what might be >>>> helpful is >>>> to have bacula-fd binaries for the different linux distributions and >>>> version. Regarding bacula-dir and bacula-sd I prefer to use Kern's >>>> suggestion to have all files under /opt/bacula. Today I have it using >>>> the "RedHat standard" and it is really cumbersome to maintain and >>>> update. >>> I don't know. It's all the same for me if all the paths are properly >>> set. >>> >>> If all the libraries, binaries and manuals are at the correct locations >>> they should already exist in the relevant path environment variable and >>> you shouldn't experience any problems whether you are using /opt/bacula >>> or /usr as your prefix during the configure and compile time. >>> >>> In case you want to check the content of the bacula rpm package you can >>> simply issue the command rpm -ql <name of the package> and that's it. >>> >>> I understand that the bacula developers have additional things to care >>> abut because they need to make it easier to support but for the end >>> users >>> it shouldn't be a problem or at least I am unable to see it. >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bacula-users mailing list >> Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
