After using Bacula for close to a decade with a tape autochanger, I'm
slightly lost with ideas related to disk-based backup I'm now trying to
implement.
Now I have a fersh test install of Bacula 7.0.5, on CentOS 7. Bacula comes
from EPEL repo.
The supplied example conf files define a "virtual autochanger", that refers
to two "storage devices" that both actually write to same directory (/tmp in
the example).
While wondering the need for this arrangement, I've figured out that this
may be to help simultaneous backup/restore jobs run smoothly. However, in my
relatively small environment it makes things look complicated if I define
every storage this way.
Is the suggested way of using a virtual autochanger a must to make things
work at all, or is it a way how to avoid problems in a big environment where
may be a lot of simultaneous backup and restore jobs? I have about 5 servers
to back up, I'll have the backups running in the nighttime, probably not
concurrently at all. If and when there will be a need for a restore job, it
will be a single restore run in the daytime. So no more than a single job at
a time.
Will there be any problem in this case, if I try to simplify the conf files
and drop away the "autochanger" and one of the two "storage devices" it
refers to, and just had a single "storage device" per each media type?
(My goal is to use 2-3 media types, all disks, but disks will be located in
physically different locations to increase fire/vandalism safety, besides
disk faults. Since every media type will require a separate storage
definition, the number of virtual autochanger definitions would multiply
correspondingly...)
Regards,
Timo
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
|
