Re: [Bacula-users] Distributed Bacula daemons

[Heitor Faria]

Hello Yateen, 

> 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.

Yes. There is a configure option for that: 

"--enable-build-dird 
This option causes the make process to build the Director and the Director's 
tools. By default, this option is on, but you may turn it off by using 
--disable-build-dird to prevent the Director from being built." 
Ref.: 

 

> Regards,

> Yateen

Regards, 
-- 

MSc Heitor Faria (Miami/USA) 
Bacula LATAM CIO 

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

Re: [Bacula-users] Distributed Bacula daemons

[Shaligram Bhagat, Yateen (Nokia - IN/Bangalore)]

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 
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

Re: [Bacula-users] Distributed Bacula daemons

[Josh Fisher]

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:

 1. Hosting bacula-dir and PostgreSQL together on one host,
bacula-sd on another host
 2. 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 


logo 
América Latina
bacula.lat  | bacula.com.br 




___
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

Re: [Bacula-users] Distributed Bacula daemons

[Heitor Faria]

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:

>1. Hosting bacula-dir and PostgreSQL together on one host, bacula-sd on 
> another
> host
>2. 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. 

> Thanks,

Regards, 

> Yateen Bhagat

-- 

MSc Heitor Faria (Miami/USA) 
Bacula LATAM CIO 

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

Re: [Bacula-users] Distributed Bacula daemons

[Gary R. Schmidt]

On 21/12/2021 13:52, Shaligram Bhagat, Yateen (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) wrote:

Hi all,

We need to host bacula-dir, bacula-sd and PostgreSQL on different 
servers, what is an efficient architecture amongst the two options given 
below:


 1. Hosting bacula-dir and PostgreSQL together on one host, bacula-sd on
another host
 2. Hosting bacula-dir on one host, bacula-sd and PostgreSQL together on
another host


Director and Storage Daemon on one system.
Database on another.

Cheers,
GaryB-)


___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users