FdStorageAddress: sd.a.mydomain.it; (config on dir.conf) My case: LAN1 Server 192.168.5.0/24 (DIR, SD-TS3200-LAN1, FD-LAN1+N1)
LAN2 Server 192.168.7.0/24 (SD-TS3200-LAN2, FD-LAN2+N1) My SD have 2 interfaces 192.168.5.5 (eth1) and 192.168.7.5 (eth0) On Server of LAN2. add client (dir) FdStorageAddress: 192.168.7.5 The Traffic: FD-LAN2 ======= SD run for 192.168.7.0/24 I have this strategy applied but point by point. Backup 3TB in less than 4 hours. RMAN-Oracle. Example: SD 10.20.5.4 FD: 10.20.5.5 (point to point). I am currently evaluating FCoE (Fibre Channel over Ethernet) I understand that Bacula Enterprise does not even work with Fiber backup (SCSI) like DataProtector does. One option is to handle FC over TCPIP On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 5:19 AM Andrea Venturoli <m...@netfence.it> wrote: > Hello. > > I'm deploying a completely new installation and I'm both facing some new > problems to solve and using 15.x for the first time, so I'm not sure if > I'm doing things wrong or if Bacula is misbehaving. > > > > > > First problem: clients are spread across three different VLANS. > While I only have one storage daemon, listening on all interfaces, > clients will need to contact it through different addresses. > I.e. > _ clients in VLAN 1 need to use sd.a.mydomain.it; > _ clients in VLAN 2 need to use sd.b.mydomain.it; > _ clients in VLAN 3 need to use sd.c.mydomain.it. > > I found no way of doing this without declaring three "Storage" resources > in bacula-dir.conf. > Is this the best way to do this? Or are there better alternatives? > > As a consequence of the above, I declared three "Device"s in bacula-sd > (since this is an HD-based storage, I just made three different > directories). > Again, is this the best way to do this? > > It's more or less working, but the SD will often hang with one "Device" > or two working and the third stuck (with clients on the affected VLAN > all "waiting on Storage xxxx"). > Is this a bug that I need to investigate or am I just using the SD in a > way that it's not supposed to work? > > Should I let three different SD run? > (This would somewhat complicate management, but I can't think of any > stopper). > > > > > > Aside, I've always done backups in sequence (one at a time); alas the > number of clients and amount of data in this installation require that I > start doing them in parallel. > > If I understand correctly, doing multiple jobs in parallel on one SD > means that data from different clients will be interleaved in a single > volume. > Is this correct? > Since I'd like to have one job per volume, is there any way to have a > single SD/device open multiple volumes at once? > > The above configuration (three Devices) allows me to do at least three > jobs in parallel (one per VLAN) without interleaving data. > However, is this supported or am I just asking for troubles? > > > > bye & Thanks > av. > > > _______________________________________________ > Bacula-users mailing list > Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users > -- ############################# # Sistema Operativo: Debian # # Caracas, Venezuela # #############################
_______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
