On 10/12/22 15:10, Robert M. Candey wrote:
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?
Yes. When the Director and PostgreSQL run on the same server, database
writes do not require a network transfer.
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?
Use fast, direct-attach SSD for the spooling storage. De-spooling must
be able to sustain sequential reads fast enough to exceed the maximum
LTO write speed.
Thank you
Robert Candey
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
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
