On 8/25/2017 1:49 PM, Luke Salsich wrote:
One remaining concern which I have (not related to Bacula at all) is the time it would take to conduct a complete system restore due to needing to transfer the data from AWS to our local. Even with their fast connection, a 150 GB transfer could take about 24 hours.Any thoughts on this or other cloud-based tape backup solutions using Bacula?
I have considered a cloud solution as an off-site storage, but abandoned it for now for due to that very reason. Cloud storage is simply not yet fast enough, or I should say that the Internet is not yet fast enough. What if the restore would require multiple TB? What if even incremental backups required large transfers, say for some data collection services, busy mail servers, etc.? At some point the Bacula service would require a dedicated Internet service or else dedicated bandwidth. Where I live, that would make cloud storage the most expensive media.
Another concern is disaster recovery. Following a disaster, while Internet service in the area may be available fairly quickly, full bandwidth to an area may not be restored for quite some time, causing a restore to be problematic. With physical media, at least systems can be restored to make use of what bandwidth is available.
Nevertheless, I do believe cloud storage is the future for backups, or at least as off-site backup storage. It is just a matter of bandwidth becoming faster and cheaper.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
