Il 24/01/2012 12:21, Xabier Elkano ha scritto:

[snip]

>> I'm just thinking out loud, but I don't see how having a catalog for
>> each client can help you scale, since you can't put them on different db
>> servers. You'd probably have a higher ROI by upgrading the DBMS hardware
>> and/or migrating to postgres and/or throwing some (consultancy) money at
>> tuning.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Why not? If I want I can put each catalog on different db servers, each
> catalog has its own db config. But this is not the idea, I want to put
> all catalogs on the same db server but trying to keep tables as small as
> possible to reduce IOs on db server, because is the server bottleneck
> now. I can upgrade my server hardware, putting more memory or cpu, but
> my problem is on disks handling these table sizes.
> 

For the record:

"Currently, Bacula can only handle a single database server"

therefore you can't put different catalogs on different db servers.

Also:

"In the current implementation, there is only a single Director
resource, but the final design will contain multiple Directors to
maintain index and media database redundancy."

so now bacula is limited to a single director which connects to a single
database server.

So it seems the only way to spread the load of a huge db onto multiple
servers is to exploit the load balancing and replication feature of the
db server.

These 2 cents of mine are based on my understanding of the docs :-)

-- 
Marcello Romani

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users