On Tuesday 2019-04-16 11:27:54 Josh Fisher wrote: > On 4/16/2019 10:45 AM, Dmitri Maziuk via Bacula-users wrote: > > I would put everything out of drbd volume because quite frankly I > > don't > > see the point. I don't think you can fail over in a middle of a > > backup, > > and without that, why not just put OS on NFS? -- or ZFS and send > > incremental snapshot as part of your manual failover. Using drbd for > > backup storage is just a waste of disk. > > Running jobs will fail, but the automated "Reschedule On Error" feature > allows restarting them after the fail-over. Also, fail-over doesn't > affect scheduled jobs that haven't started yet at the time of fail-over. > Putting the OS on DRBD and running in a VM (or container) allows > continuation of backup services without operator intervention. What is > wrong with that?
Nothing is wrong with that if one needs it and can afford it. > I agree that putting volume files on DRBD is wasteful, since running > jobs will always fail at fail-over, but putting just the OS on DRBD > doesn't use much disk space, and it certainly isn't a waste when it > reduces or eliminates operator intervention. When used properly DRBD can ensure redundancy. Often people want to have secondary backup and archives. One can copy backup jobs or volumes to a remote site and archive them at some point (my choice) but one can also chose to sync the blocks of the underlying block device to a remote location which could serve the purpose if the goal is to protect yourself from hardware error on the primary site. Regards! -- Josip Deanovic _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
