> "Marco Zancanaro" <marco.zanca AT gmail DOT com> kirjoitti viestissä
> news:AANLkTilG5xZ50f0nobuGOlb_qnGdMSA1xVzbpNQjrUvb AT mail.gmail DOT com...

> Hi, i've configured a bacula system in my local network. I need to do the
> backup locally for a fast backup and a fast retore, but i also need a
> remote backup for safety reason.
> I'm think of doing a remote copy of the volume that bacula creates. The
> problem is that the volume is very large, about  118 Gb at the moment. And
> i need to copy the data in a secure way (btw the data is already encrypted
> with bacula PKI function). I don't think that i can do any type of
> incremental backup with this volume, because it's one big file that
> changes every day.
> My idea is to use bacula with a specific job that use a different storage.
> This storage is a mount point for the remote computer filesystem. I can
> introduce here some sort of protection with a vpn or other solution, i
> also thik of using bacula tls capabilities but then i'm forced to use tls
> in the local network, and this is not necessary.
> I've two option:
> 1. Do a backup of the volume (the volume contains the backup that bacula
> do every day)
> 2. Re-do every backup that bacula already did, but this time in the remote
> location (i think this is not a good idea)
>
>
> At this point I don't know if i can do this with bacula ... any other
> ideas?
>
> I'm using bacula 2.4.4 with ssl support and i've an ADSL line with
> 20Mbits/sec down and 512 Kbits/sec up. On the remote end there is a
> computer with similar internet connection.
>

So you effectively have 512kbit/s, or 64 kB/s symmetric bandwith. 100 GB
over this connection would take over 400 hours, over 2 weeks. Provided the
connection is reliable enough, so there would be no fatal timeout errors
during this time frame, causing the system to stop running. And, if your
connections are dedicated for this purpose, and the bandwith is not
significantly needed for some other use.

I think your only option is to take care of full backups locally, and
thereafter physically move the media to remote location. Then, if your data
does not change too much daily, you maybe could run incremental backups to
remote storage. But backing up the volume would mean that you have to back
up the whole volume (100 GB could be split to smaller chunks). So I think
you'd better run separate jobs to remote storage.

In 24 hours, 64 kB/s can transfer 5.5 GB. So, if you'll get maybe less than
2 GB new data daily, the incrementals might work this way (assuming you can
spend an average of 50% of the bandwith for backups) Note that running
incrementals more or less often does not help -it's a relationship between
bandwith and the rate you'll get new data.

Whether to do this with Bacula or using some other means is only a question
after you know your bandwith is adequate.


Also remember that a possible restore takes as much time. Since it's about a
secondary location for improved security, needing this remote data is
probably related to some sort of disaster. So I guess in that hopefully rare
occasion you may be able to physically get the remote media on-site.

--
TiN



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users