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@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
