On 3/26/2014 10:52 PM, James Harper wrote:
> I have a new server running Windows 2012R2 with Hyper-V for running Windows 
> VM's. Rather than buy a separate server for running Bacula on, I'm thinking 
> we can use a SAN with an iSCSI connection to a Linux VM and run the director 
> and sd on that.
>
> Is anyone doing this and could comment on the performance and/or pitfalls of 
> doing this? I don't know how I'll achieve the virtual-to-usb yet either.
>
> The SAN is a Netgear NAS with an iSCSI facility. It seems there was a version 
> of bacula available to run on the NAS itself but I don't think it's been 
> updated in a number of years.

I'm not using Hyper-V, however I have been running dir and sd in a 
qemu-kvm VM on Linux for some time. The VM is assigned local storage 
located on SSD for the bacula database. With the db on fast local 
storage, VM performance is on par with bare metal. It is certainly 
possible to put the db on iSCSI attached storage. The problem is that 
Bacula is quite i/o intensive and may use a sizable amount of the iSCSI 
bandwidth when jobs are running. It just depends on timing and what 
other VMs it must share the bandwidth with when jobs are running.

The problem with running Bacula on the NAS device is that it still 
requires running a SQL server somewhere for the Bacula database. Most of 
these NAS devices are rather anemic in terms of RAM and CPU performance 
and are not up to the task.

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