Hi

Out of curiosity, why do you do such "forklift replacements" when ZFS supports replacing individual drives, letting the pool resilver and then automatically grow to the new size?

roy

---

I have been using Bacula for over a year now and it has been providing 'passable' service though I think since day one I have been streching it to it's limits or need a paradigm shift in how I am configuring it. Basically, I have a single server which has direct atached disk (~128TB / 112 drives) and Tape drives (LTO4).   It's main function is a centralized file server & archival server.   It has several mount points (~20) (ZFS) to break down some structures based on file size and intended use basically spawning a new mountpoint for anything > a couple TB or 100,000 files.  Some file systems are up to 30TB in size others are only a handful of GB.   With ~4,000,000 files anywhere from 4KiB up to 32GiB in size.   Data change is about 1-2TiB/month which is not that big of an issue.   The problem is when I need to do full backups and restores (restores mainly ever 1-2 years when I have to do forklift replacement of drives).   Bottlenecks that I see are:     - File daemon is single threaded so is limiting backup performance.   Is there was a way to start more than one stream at the same time for a single machine backup?   Right now I have all the file systems for a single client in the same file set.     - Tied in with above, accurate backups cut into performance even more when doing all the md5/sha1 calcs.   Spliting this perhaps with above to multiple threads would really help.     - How to stream a single job to multiple tape drives.   Couldn't figure this out so that only one tape drive is being used.     - spooling to disk first then to tape is a killer.   if multiple streams could happen at once this may mitigate this or some type of continous spooling.  How do others do this? At this point I'm starting to look at Arkeia & Netbackup both with provide multistreaming and tape drive pooling, but would rather stick or send my $$ to open source if I could opposed to closed systems. I'm at a point where I can't do a 20-30day full backup.   And 'virtual fulls' are not an answer.  There's no way I can tie up tape drives for the hundreds of tapes at 2.5 hours per tape assuming zero processing overhead.  I have plenty of cpu on the system and plenty of disk subsystem speed, just can't seem to get at it through bacula. So what options are available or how are others backing  up huge single servers?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

--
Vennlige hilsener / Best regards

roy
--
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
(+47) 97542685
roy AT karlsbakk DOT net
http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/
--
I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security 
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes 
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2

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