On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:31:27 -0600 Brad Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I currently have my "on-site" bacula performing backups to a large > LVM partition (no tapes). Some extra stuff gets copied to that > partion (ie. bacula db dump,etc...) and then gets rsync'd through a > ssh connection over the internet to an "off-site" LVM. One server > has a monthly "full" backup that is too large (> 120G) to transfer > that way so I manually copy it to a usb-book type disk and manually > transfer it to the off-site location. The dailys, diffs and all > other fulls transfer fine (about two/four hours in the middle of > the night) without any problems. Rsync cleans up unused files and > has run hands-free every night. I have a complete mirror copy of > my bacula storage well before work starts the next day. That'd be pretty dandy - a relatively elegant solution, methinks. Unfortunately I don't really think there's a data link available to any other location with sufficient capacity to transfer even the nightly backup data off-site... > The two LVMs are about 1.2T in each location although your size may > vary. > > Nick Withers wrote: > > G'day guys, > > > > Just trying to design a backup solution using Bacula for a small > > company I work for and would appreciate some help with a few > > issues. This email may be rather long, so certainly appreciate > > anyone taking the time to read it, let alone offer any insight > > they may have! > > > > The main problem I'm having is that I want backups both on-site > > (for restoring files users accidentally deleted and other > > relatively trivial matters) and off-site (for when the site gets > > stepped on by Godzilla). Methinks I'm after (upcoming?) "copy > > job" magic... :-) > > > > The company currently has two 200-odd GB USB-accessible HDDs and > > five 110-odd GB USB accessible HDDs. I'd like to avoid having to > > acquire any further hardware at this point and think that this > > should be enough to hold the required data anyway, at least > > following the scheme outlined below. > > > > My current idea runs like this: > > - A monthly full backup of each machine to one of the 200 GB > > drives (each machine uses it's own full backup pool) > > - This drive is then taken off-site and the other 200 GB drive > > put in its place for the next monthly full backup > > - Weekday night-run differential backups to one of the 110 GB > > drives (each machine uses it's own differential backup pool) > > - This drive is then taken off-site and the 110 GB drive for the > > next differential backup is put in its place > > > > This would mean that with the just the full backup and the > > previous day's differential backup drives from off-site, the > > previous day's state could be completely restored. Bet I've > > missed some really obviously nicer way of achieving this or > > something similar though! I don't believe that too much data will > > be changing on a daily basis, so hopefully the increasingly large > > differential backups throughout the month won't be a problem. > > > > Now I also want to be able to access the backups on-site, without > > having to drag in off-site backup drives. I'd prefer to do the > > actual backup to the removable drives in the first instance as > > these are the "critical" ones and I'd like the job(s) to fail in > > the case of full removable drives. I've thought of: > > - Copying the backup volumes from the removable drives to a > > local location following a backup. Problems / potential problems: > > - Have to know the names of the relevant volumes on the > > removable media > > - Would really like to be able to specify restoring from the > > relocated volumes in a nice manner, rather than those on the > > removable media > > - Migrating the volumes from the removable media to a local > > location following a backup. Problems / potential problems: > > - Would want to be able to easily use the removable-drive > > volumes if the local ones go AWOL (e.g., Godzilla...) > > - Would want matching volume names on local and removable > > locations so that volumes are easily identifiable > > - Would want volume recycling to occur on both locations > > > > I've attached (slightly sanitised) Director and Software Director > > config files for the current setup (very much alpha), in case this > > helps. > > > > Anyone have any ideas? Should I just hang on until "copy job" > > saves everything? Am I being profoundly stupid in one / many ways? > > > > By the way, the system's all-Windows and screaming along very > > nicely using 2.0.2 - huzzah! > > > > Any and all thoughts appreciated! > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > > share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief > > surveys-and earn cash > > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bacula-users mailing list > > Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users > > -- Nick Withers email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.nickwithers.com Mobile: +61 414 397 446 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
