I've been using Bacula to back up many servers and desktops to a tape library
since early on, but always had one server running all of the Bacula processes
except for the individual file servers.
I'm setting up a new tape library and have new data servers, so I'm wondering if
there is a more efficient architecture for backing up 1PB, mostly stored on one
server and NFS-mounted to the other data servers.
Does it make sense to run the PostgreSQL database server and storage servers on
their own servers dedicated to Bacula?
Is there value in running the Director on one or the other?
Should I continue to run the storage daemon on the server that hosts the large
data?
I'm thinking that the NFS server might be more efficient if run on its own, and
transfer its data over the network (100GbE) to the Bacula storage server
attached to the tape library. And perhaps PostgreSQL could have dedicated
memory and CPU. I don't know what if anything is slowing down our backups. Full
backups take 4-6 weeks for 500 TB now.
Ideas? Thoughts? Suggestions?
Thank you
Robert Candey
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
