Bacula-users

[Bacula-users] RFC on how best to share pools, storage devices etc.

2011-04-01 08:28:34
Subject: [Bacula-users] RFC on how best to share pools, storage devices etc.
From: Gavin McCullagh <gavin.mccullagh AT gcd DOT ie>
To: Bacula Users List <bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 13:26:09 +0100
Hi,

we have bacula in use with about 35 different FDs now.  It works
brilliantly for us¹.

Our routine for each server is based on the example automated backup
routine described in the manual.  We're not using tapes which some people
may frown on a little, we're using disk-based volumes.  The convenience of
disks compared to tapes is something we value -- though I guess I would
like to introduce tapes at some point for offline archival.

When I was starting out, I came across a post somewhere on the lists that
said it was a good idea with disk volumes to create a separate storage
device for each client as it would avoid concurrency issues, etc.

I went a little further with this and created multiple pools (full, inc,
diff) for each client, a fileset for each client, a schedule for each
client, etc.  Probably overkill and I now have over a hundred pools,
thirty-something storage devices, schedules, filesets etc.  I keep each
host's config in a single file and include it into bacula-dir.conf so it's
quite easy to navigate but I suspect this isn't how it was meant to be.
It's really handy for me to be able to look at each directory on disk and
see the backups for that server, see how big they are, mtimes on the
volumes, etc.  Is this likely to present a problem at some point?  Should I
urgently mend my ways?  

I have a bunch of laptops to back up now and I'm thinking maybe I should
try and be more disciplined for these and create a single storage device,
pool set, jobdefs, schedule and (default) fileset for all.  This will allow
me to delegate creation of new jobs more easily, as the config will be
smaller for junior staff.  I will only be able to see the total shared
volume sizes and mtimes which is a downside.  Are there any other
disadvantages?  Is this a good idea or should I just keep going how I have
been?  Should I try to do the same on our servers to reduce the config
down?

Many thanks in advance for any suggestions,

Gavin

¹ Kern: if you're ever in Dublin (Ireland), we owe you a meal.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Create and publish websites with WebMatrix
Use the most popular FREE web apps or write code yourself; 
WebMatrix provides all the features you need to develop and 
publish your website. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-webmatrix-sf
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>