Hi Gary,Heitor,Josh Thanks for your suggestions/comments.
Personally I too prefer having PostgreSQL & bacula-dir on one machine and the storage on another. This option gives more scalability for future storage growth and also enables designing storage solution optimized for the very purpose. In my case, the storage is hosted on FreeBSD/ZFS (for the obvious benefits of ZFS), whereas the PostgreSQL & bacula-dir is hosted on Centos. Since bacula clients send their fileset directly to SD and subsequently SD sends only spooled file attributes to DIR for Catalog update, the architecture in option A sounds appropriate. Note : I complied the bacula-server source code for FreeBSD. I wanted to have an option to compile only bacula-SD. But looks like there is no such option. The compilation mandates database is installed and running. So I had to first have the PostgreSQL installed and running. I then modified the “bacula” startup script to start only bacula-sd omitting starting up of bacula-dir & bacula-fd. Regards, Yateen From: Josh Fisher <jfis...@jaybus.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 11:15 PM To: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Distributed Bacula daemons On 12/21/21 07:19, Heitor Faria wrote: Hello Yateen, We need to host bacula-dir, bacula-sd and PostgreSQL on different servers, what is an efficient architecture amongst the two options given below: A. Hosting bacula-dir and PostgreSQL together on one host, bacula-sd on another host B. Hosting bacula-dir on one host, bacula-sd and PostgreSQL together on another host IMHO one should only spam machines if required by the sizing (https://www.bacula.lat/bacula-sizing/?lang=en), or for network optimization (e.g. a SD closer to the FDs in a remote network). A SD is sufficient to backup about 400 machines. Other than that you will use more resources and have a larger surface of possible vulnrerabilities (the oposite of the hardening technique). But again, it is just my opinion. If you still need to make this splti I would go for option "A. Hosting bacula-dir and PostgreSQL together on one host, bacula-sd on another host", because it will be more pratical to manage the database creation and configuration, one less network service and a little bit safer. Director and DB also require different types of machines resources. I question why there would ever be a reason to put the catalog DB on a different host that bacula-dir. The sizing document linked to suggests 1 bacula-dir+DB server host for up to 5,000 machines. Also, if you use debs / rpms, then database updates are automated at upgrade time. Splitting the catalog DB from bacula-dir is extra work and extra (considerable) network traffic for no gain (that I can think of). Thanks, Regards, Yateen Bhagat -- MSc Heitor Faria (Miami/USA) Bacula LATAM CIO mobile1: + 1 909 655-8971 mobile2: + 55 61 98268-4220 [linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/in/msc-heitor-faria-5ba51b3> [logo]<http://www.bacula.com.br/> América Latina bacula.lat<http://bacula.lat> | bacula.com.br<http://www.bacula.com.br> _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net<mailto: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
