> > I'll do backups to disk on a raid6 (28 TB) which is attached via > > fibre channel. > > I recommend against using a single raid for backups. If the raid > controller silently corrupts your raid or there is a file system > problem you can easily loose all of your backups. I have seen both > happen in my 15 years in the industry. I was not in-charge of the data > when either happened and we were not using bacula.
Well, then I'd need two raids or the like. So, that's the old matter of how much effort (aka money) do I put in redundancy. Besides I'll attach a tape later on for full backups every two or three weeks. > > There will be 50 clients with data ranging from a few MB to 100 GB > > or more for a full backup, tiny files from mail servers as well as > > large database ones. > > Speed and reliability are both important (as always). > > > > The question now is simply what is the best setup? > > > > I do not think there is one simple best setup. Sure, but one that fits my needs ;-) > > > > Should I do one big volume pool or better a few smaller ones? > > I think one big pool is easier to manage. > > > This is a user preference. I have 15 to 20 pools with about the same > amount of space and clients but most of these pools are for archival. > I only have 2 pools for backup. > > > > > What is the best size for the volumes? > > My opinion is 5 to 10 GB. But others use much larger volumes. Since > you have so much space 100GB would be fine. Remember that recycling is > all or none. I mean an entire volume needs to be recycled to reclaim > any space from after a job expires. So if you make your volumes too > large the recycling may take longer than you think. I had volumes with 20 GB on slow USB-drives, which was ok concerning recycling. As long as the RAID is quite fast I do not expect problems with 100 GB volumes. > > 100 GB seems to be reasonable. > > > > Which file system to have the best transfer rates? xfs? ext4? > > Either xfs or ext4 are good choices. On the subject of filesystems I > do not believe ext3 is a good choice however since it will take > minutes to delete a large file like this with xfs and ext4 taking less > than 1 second. Yep, ext3 is out of question. Advantages so far for xfs: mkfs takes a fraction of a second, just 4.9 MB taken after formating and no problem with all of the 28 TB. ext4 has a restriction of 16 TiB due to e2fsprogs. > > xfs could be better here but I am not sure about it. > > > > I like ubuntu. 10.04.1 LTS or the newer 10.10? > > I tend to LTS. > > > I would go for the newer. Because later is greater? And after a while I simply do a dist-upgrade with a (small) risk of messing all up? > John > thx, Oliver ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Next 800 Companies to Lead America's Growth: New Video Whitepaper David G. Thomson, author of the best-selling book "Blueprint to a Billion" shares his insights and actions to help propel your business during the next growth cycle. Listen Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/SAP-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
