Hi Out of curiosity, why do you do such "forklift replacements" when ZFS
supports replacing individual drives, letting the pool resilver and then
automatically grow to the new size? roy ----- Original Message -----
> I have been using Bacula for over a year now and it has been providing
> 'passable' service though I think since day one I have been streching
> it to it's limits or need a paradigm shift in how I am configuring it.
> Basically, I have a single server which has direct atached disk
> (~128TB / 112 drives) and Tape drives (LTO4). It's main function is a
> centralized file server & archival server. It has several mount points
> (~20) (ZFS) to break down some structures based on file size and
> intended use basically spawning a new mountpoint for anything > a
> couple TB or 100,000 files. Some file systems are up to 30TB in size
> others are only a handful of GB. With ~4,000,000 files anywhere from
> 4KiB up to 32GiB in size.
> Data change is about 1-2TiB/month which is not that big of an issue.
> The problem is when I need to do full backups and restores (restores
> mainly ever 1-2 years when I have to do forklift replacement of
> drives). Bottlenecks that I see are:
> - File daemon is single threaded so is limiting backup performance. Is
> there was a way to start more than one stream at the same time for a
> single machine backup? Right now I have all the file systems for a
> single client in the same file set.
> - Tied in with above, accurate backups cut into performance even more
> when doing all the md5/sha1 calcs. Spliting this perhaps with above to
> multiple threads would really help.
> - How to stream a single job to multiple tape drives. Couldn't figure
> this out so that only one tape drive is being used.
> - spooling to disk first then to tape is a killer. if multiple streams
> could happen at once this may mitigate this or some type of continous
> spooling. How do others do this?
> At this point I'm starting to look at Arkeia & Netbackup both with
> provide multistreaming and tape drive pooling, but would rather stick
> or send my $$ to open source if I could opposed to closed systems.
> I'm at a point where I can't do a 20-30day full backup. And 'virtual
> fulls' are not an answer. There's no way I can tie up tape drives for
> the hundreds of tapes at 2.5 hours per tape assuming zero processing
> overhead. I have plenty of cpu on the system and plenty of disk
> subsystem speed, just can't seem to get at it through bacula.
> So what options are available or how are others backing up huge single
> servers?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously
> valuable.
> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance,
> security
> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and
> makes
> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2
> _______________________________________________
> Bacula-users mailing list
> Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
-- Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685
r...@karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det
essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ
for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed
opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer
på norsk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
