Re: [Bacula-users] Baculum question

2020-04-09 Thread Marcin Haba 
Hello Per,

Admin account enables to configure all hosts by the Configure page and
only there you can see and set both API 1 and API 2 resources
together. Baculum Web can work with many Baculum API instances but it
doesn't merge theirs resources in one view.

Unfortunately, so far it is possible to have only one admin account.
If you need to change admin account you need to edit Baculum Web
settings.conf config file.

I hope it helps.

Best regards,
Marcin Haba (gani)

On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 10:20, Per Qvindesland  wrote:
>
> Hi Marcin
>
> Many thanks for the clarification, I am on the right track :)
>
> That would be great if we can use an admin account to view all hosts, if I 
> look at the admin account that I initially created then it’s only able to 
> view clients form api 1 and not api 2 how can I change it so the account sees 
> both hosts? Is it possible to add more admin accounts? When I add a user it 
> doesn’t give any option on changing the user privileges.
>
> Regards
> Per
>
>
>
> On 7 Apr 2020, at 08:08, Marcin Haba  wrote:
>
> Hello Per,
>
> Great. Thanks for the confirmation that it started working on your side.
>
> Also thank you for your feedback about documentation. I agree it must
> be improved.
>
> About API hosts and users, currently is possible to use one regular
> user per one API host as shown on this image:
>
> https://www.bacula.org/9.6.x-manuals/en/images/baculum_multi_user_user_mode.png
>
> It can be also the same API host for all users, of course (or
> different API hosts for users).
>
> Only main administrator account is capable to manage all hosts and
> assign them to particular users as on image:
>
> https://www.bacula.org/9.6.x-manuals/en/images/baculum_multi_user_admin_mode.png
>
> Best regards,
> Marcin Haba (gani)
>
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 12:43, Per Qvindesland  wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> Many thanks, I got the API to work on both api 1 and api 2 and the web host 
> is able to talk to them and both are added in to the web host.
>
> I do apologies if this is stated clearly somewhere in the documentation and I 
> have done a fair bit of googllingbut the only thing I can’t get my head 
> around is how to assign hosts api 1 and api 2 to one user,
>
> I created a user on the each API hosts in then OAuth2 section then in 
> configure I added the host with the client id’s to the web server host ran 
> the tests, but when adding a new user then I still can’t add more then one 
> API host to each user, is there anything that I have missed out on?
>
> Regards
> Per
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5 Apr 2020, at 09:00, Marcin Haba  wrote:
>
> Hello Per,
>
> Yes, your web server configuration is correct.
>
> Same changing web server configuration is not sufficient. Did you
> switch Baculum API instance to use OAuth2? You can do it in Baculum
> API configuration wizard. After that you need to define OAuth2 client
> account and connect Baculum Web (in Settings wizard) to Baculum API
> with these new OAuth2 settings.
>
> I hope it helps.
>
> Best regards,
> Marcin Haba (gani)
>
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 17:30, Per Qvindesland via Bacula-users
>  wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> Thanks I am trying that but I am getting error Problem with authentication to 
> Baculum API.
>
>
> Is this the correct apache config to disable basic authentication?
>
> #   
>   
>   AuthType Basic
>   AuthName "Baculum Auth"
>   AuthUserFile 
> /usr/share/baculum/htdocs/protected/API/Config/baculum.users
>   Require valid-user
>   
> #   
>
> Regards
> Per
>
>
>
>
> On 3 Apr 2020, at 14:57, Heitor Faria  wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>
> Hello Per,
>
> Not sure if this is the correct place to ask but I am using Baculum and I am
> wondering if it’s possible to configure baculum to allow users to view 
> multiple
> api hosts?
>
>
> Yes 
> .
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Per
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Bacula-users mailing list
> Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
>
>
> --
> MSc Heitor Faria
> CEO Bacula LATAM
> mobile1: + 1 909 655-8971
> mobile2: + 55 61 98268-4220
> [ https://www.linkedin.com/in/msc-heitor-faria-5ba51b3 ]
> [ http://www.bacula.com.br/ ]
>
> América Latina
> [ http://bacula.lat/ | bacula.lat ] | [ http://www.bacula.com.br/ | 
> bacula.com.br ]
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Bacula-users mailing list
> Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
>
>
>
>
> --
> "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for
> his friends." Jesus Christ
>
> "Większej miłości nikt nie ma nad tę, jak gdy kto życie swoje kładzie
> za przyjaciół swoich." Jezus Chrystus
>
>
>
>
> --
> "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for
> his friends." Jesus Christ
>
> "Większej mi

Re: [Bacula-users] Issue with concurrent jobs in disk based auto changer

2020-04-09 Thread Radosław Korzeniewski 
Hello,

czw., 9 kwi 2020 o 13:20 Josh Fisher  napisał(a):

>
> On 4/9/2020 4:09 AM, Radosław Korzeniewski wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> wt., 7 kwi 2020 o 14:40 Josh Fisher  napisał(a):
>
>>
>> On 4/7/2020 7:20 AM, Radosław Korzeniewski wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> wt., 7 kwi 2020 o 09:38 Shaligram Bhagat, Yateen (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) <
>> yateen.shaligram_bha...@nokia.com> napisał(a):
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The issue is resolved after I increased the number of devices under a
>>> filechanger.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, the suggestion to keep the file server and the bacula-sd
>>> on the same host is good one.
>>>
>>
>> If you are using backup to tape then yes, running a dedicated bacula-sd
>> on file server is a good recommendation.
>>
>> Also true if the file server in question is only for the backup volumes.
>>
> I assume a "file server" mentioned above is not a server which only holds
> backup volume files but a common sense of this term like storing user
> profiles, documents, production files, photos, movies, etc.
> If the "file server" holds only backup volumes, then I personally do not
> name it "file server" but a backup server. Exporting backup volume files
> used by SD without a proper operational synchronization is not a good idea.
> It does not harm your backups when exported as read-only, but
> full-access...
>
>
> OK. Backup server, then.
>
Great!

> The point was to move SD to the host where the backup volume files are
> stored to prevent doubling the network traffic required.
>
Yes, it is a very recommended way to optimize backup paths.

> If data is stored on that host as well, then care must be taken to ensure
> that the storage that the volume files are written to is isolated,
> physically and logically, from the storage that data is written to.
>
Absolutely. Thanks for clarification then.

best regards
-- 
Radosław Korzeniewski
rados...@korzeniewski.net
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] Issue with concurrent jobs in disk based auto changer

2020-04-09 Thread Josh Fisher 


On 4/9/2020 4:09 AM, Radosław Korzeniewski wrote:

Hello,

wt., 7 kwi 2020 o 14:40 Josh Fisher > napisał(a):



On 4/7/2020 7:20 AM, Radosław Korzeniewski wrote:

Hello,

wt., 7 kwi 2020 o 09:38 Shaligram Bhagat, Yateen (Nokia -
IN/Bangalore) mailto:yateen.shaligram_bha...@nokia.com>> napisał(a):

Hi,

The issue is resolved after I increased the number of devices
under a filechanger.

Nevertheless, the suggestion to keep the file server and the
bacula-sd on the same host is good one.


If you are using backup to tape then yes, running a dedicated
bacula-sd on file server is a good recommendation.


Also true if the file server in question is only for the backup
volumes.

I assume a "file server" mentioned above is not a server which only 
holds backup volume files but a common sense of this term like storing 
user profiles, documents, production files, photos, movies, etc.
If the "file server" holds only backup volumes, then I personally do 
not name it "file server" but a backup server. Exporting backup volume 
files used by SD without a proper operational synchronization is not a 
good idea. It does not harm your backups when exported as read-only, 
but full-access...



OK. Backup server, then. The point was to move SD to the host where the 
backup volume files are stored to prevent doubling the network traffic 
required. If data is stored on that host as well, then care must be 
taken to ensure that the storage that the volume files are written to is 
isolated, physically and logically, from the storage that data is 
written to.





But! If you backup to file volumes and disks mounted directly on
this file server then it is - generally - not recommended. In the
worst case scenario you can lose all your data including backups.
Be aware.


Yes. It would never be a good idea to have backup volume files and
data on the same set of physical disks.

NO, it doesn't matter if it is the same physical disk, any number of 
separate devices, lvm or raid groups or just a network filesystem 
mounted remotely. If it is available for writing with a standard file 
io api then it exposes a huge risk! You should never do that.

best regards
--
Radosław Korzeniewski
rados...@korzeniewski.net 
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] Issue with concurrent jobs in disk based auto changer

2020-04-09 Thread Radosław Korzeniewski 
Hello,

wt., 7 kwi 2020 o 14:40 Josh Fisher  napisał(a):

>
> On 4/7/2020 7:20 AM, Radosław Korzeniewski wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> wt., 7 kwi 2020 o 09:38 Shaligram Bhagat, Yateen (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) <
> yateen.shaligram_bha...@nokia.com> napisał(a):
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> The issue is resolved after I increased the number of devices under a
>> filechanger.
>>
>> Nevertheless, the suggestion to keep the file server and the bacula-sd on
>> the same host is good one.
>>
>
> If you are using backup to tape then yes, running a dedicated bacula-sd on
> file server is a good recommendation.
>
> Also true if the file server in question is only for the backup volumes.
>
I assume a "file server" mentioned above is not a server which only holds
backup volume files but a common sense of this term like storing user
profiles, documents, production files, photos, movies, etc.
If the "file server" holds only backup volumes, then I personally do not
name it "file server" but a backup server. Exporting backup volume files
used by SD without a proper operational synchronization is not a good idea.
It does not harm your backups when exported as read-only, but
full-access...

>
> But! If you backup to file volumes and disks mounted directly on this file
> server then it is - generally - not recommended. In the worst case scenario
> you can lose all your data including backups. Be aware.
>
> Yes. It would never be a good idea to have backup volume files and data on
> the same set of physical disks.
>
NO, it doesn't matter if it is the same physical disk, any number of
separate devices, lvm or raid groups or just a network filesystem mounted
remotely. If it is available for writing with a standard file io api then
it exposes a huge risk! You should never do that.

best regards
-- 
Radosław Korzeniewski
rados...@korzeniewski.net
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users