> I'm curious as to what the general consensus among the Bacula user > community is, regarding this subject. I saw a post from Arno from last > year saying that he recycles catalog backups quickly by placing them > in the same pool as incremental backups, but I thought that perhaps > this question could use to be discussed a bit more explicitly. > I will tell you what I do. First I would like to describe my hardware a little. My database, my director and my primary storage are on 3 different 64 bit gentoo linux machines. I backup most of my data to LTO2 tapes (Exabyte Magnum224) on the main storage machine. Each night after the othe backups are completed I backup the backup catalog. For this I use disk volumes on the director machine. These disk volumes have a max vol size of 2GB and there is plenty of space on the director (200GB raid 5 partition for bacula disk volumes). On this array there are currently 8 volumes in the BackupCatalogs Pool and I have the volume retention set to 15 days for the pool. My postgresql database size it is around 12GB as I have > 4 million files but after compression the dumps are less than 2GB so I should have between 8 and 12 copies of the catalog stored this way.
John ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
