Re: [Bacula-users] Pool per client

Hi Pablo,

If you have enough disk space handy, you could send each Client’s data to its own disk Pool with its own Next Pool specification. Each Client’s data would be in its own Pool on disk, then move to its own Pool on tape. This is exactly what I’ve done at my site, except the disk Pools all point to the same tape Pool.

Greg

From: Pablo Marques [mailto:pmarques AT miamilinux DOT net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 7:28 AM
To: Randy Katz
Cc: bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Pool per client

Thanks Randy,

Unfortunately Maximum Concurrent Jobs won't cut it because I need a different tape per client. Still I set it to 1000.
When spooling is enabled, bacula still wants a tape from the client pool on the drive before the spooling starts.

I could create a virtual library with MHVTL and use several drives or use a disk-changer emulator. But I am not sure how scalable these solutions are.

Pablo

From: "Randy Katz" <rkatz AT simplicityhosting DOT com>
To: bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 6:08:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Pool per client

On 4/12/2011 4:04 PM, Pablo Marques wrote:

I have a setup to backup lots of clients over slow links.
I want to have each client (or group of clients) backed up to dedicated client pools, so client1 will go to pool client1, and so on.
That way I have better control of the space used, if a client goes away I can simply delete the tapes (or files) an get the space back immediately.
Also it gives me better control on the retention on a per client basis.

The problem is that when I try to backup multiple clients at the same time, the storage process has to wait for each job to finish before it can move to the next because it needs to change the tape (different client --> different pool). Some clients may take many hours to finish, forcing everybody else to wait.

I enabled spooling, but it seems like Bacula requires to mount a tape from the client pool on a drive before the client spooling can begin.
Can this be avoided?

A possible solution would be to do all backups on a special pool and after they are done migrate later each client job to each client pool.
But I cannot find a way to modify the "Next Pool" dynamically. It is a fixed setting on the Pool definition.

Does anybody have suggestions on how to accomplish this?

Look into Maximum Concurrent Jobs in your Storage definition.

Regards,
Randy

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forrester Wave Report - Recovery time is now measured in hours and minutes
not days. Key insights are discussed in the 2010 Forrester Wave Report as
part of an in-depth evaluation of disaster recovery service providers.
Forrester found the best-in-class provider in terms of services and vision.
Read this report now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/ibm-webcastpromo
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forrester Wave Report - Recovery time is now measured in hours and minutes
not days. Key insights are discussed in the 2010 Forrester Wave Report as
part of an in-depth evaluation of disaster recovery service providers.
Forrester found the best-in-class provider in terms of services and vision.
Read this report now!  http://p.sf.net/sfu/ibm-webcastpromo

_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users