I agree Josh. As we review this current internet speed limitation more, I
think we will use AWS cloud for servers with small to moderate data size.
For example, a Linux server which manages a web app and has a total disk
size of under 50 GB will go to the cloud.
Servers with storage which requires backup and is over 50 GB we will store
locally.
I'm also going to look into backing up one server using two jobs and two
filesets - one job for large, local storage and one job for small, critical
data for the cloud. I assume this is workable, but I haven't tested the
functionality yet or worked through the logic thoroughly.
The reason I want to look into this is two-job approach is:
1. Cloud storage through AWS Storage Gateway is incredibly cheap, reliable
and easy to scale
2. We need to have critical files stored off-site in case of a local
disaster
---------------
Luke Salsich
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Josh Fisher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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
