Re: [Bacula-users] Backing up Xen virtual machines (LVM)

[Josh Fisher]

On 5/6/2014 4:10 AM, Dawid Piotrowski wrote: Thank you for your insights, Josh, you've given me some points to consider. It would seem that for my intended purpose (restoration of entire VMs) LVM snapshots are better suited. What I'm wondering is whether an in-VM setup would also work for restoring virtual machines. The scenario I envision is as follows: I'm going to do full backups of VMs (including all possible configuration files, but excluding /dev, /proc, /mnt, /run, /sys). This way, if a VM fails entirely and is unrecoverable otherwise, I can create a new instance from scratch, then install bacula-fd on it, apply the original config and restore the last full backup. This procedure should effectively give me a clone of the original VM (not a clone in strict sense, obviously). I have tried that on a test machine and it worked OK but, inexperienced as I am with Bacula, I might be missing some quirks here. Does it seem like a reasonable plan or am I going to paint myself into a corner with this one? No. In that case restoring a VM is identical to restoring a physical machine and no less reliable. What I do is create a bootable restore image. This is done by creating a minimal VM with nothing but minimal OS and bacula-fd and otherwise just network config and a skeleton of the root filesystem with no actual data. Then dd the root filesystem of the skeleton VM to a file that gets backed up with the host server. To restore just dd the skeleton image to the VMs LVM partition. Since the skeleton is made as small as possible, use fdisk, kpartx and resize2fs or whatever is needed to resize the VMs root partition and filesystem. Then just boot the VM and restore as usual from bconsole. If the VM has other partitions then you will have to manually create filesystems on them and mount them before restoring. This just saves time over recreating completely from scratch. Best regards, Dawid Piotrowski On 5 May 2014 18:44, Josh Fisher <jfis...@pvct.com> wrote: On 5/5/2014 10:44 AM, Dawid Piotrowski wrote: Hello everyone I am preparing to implement Bacula on one of the servers I look after, but being new to the Bacula subject I would like to ask for some advisory from users more experienced. The server I mean to run Bacula on is Debian Wheezy-based and serves as a host to several LVM-based Xen virtual machines running Wheezy as well. Some of the VMs are database servers (mainly PostgreSQL). The intended Bacula version is 5.2.6, available in Wheezy repositories. My first question concerns where it is more advisable to place Bacula daemons: on the host system (and back up using LVM snapshots) or in the virtual machines themselves? I guess it's easier to ensure data consistency using LVM snapshots but I am afraid it would be much harder to restore the machine in this way so I am inclined to install Bacula in the VMs. However, wisdom comes from experience, so I ask you, the more seasoned users: which of the ways is less likely to give me headaches and what are possible 'gotchas' in each one? My intended use of Bacula is being able to restore a failed VM back up quickly in case of a disaster, rather than restoring single files. Any recommendations would be more than welcome. Keep in mind that creating a LVM snapshot of an active filesystem is never a valid strategy. For example, DB tables must be locked while the LVM snapshot is created. It only takes a brief time to create the snapshot, but the VM must somehow be made quiescent while the snapshot is created. The only safe way I'm aware of is to pause the VM, create the snapshot, then resume the VM. Once created, the snapshot will have to store copies of modified blocks for as long as it lives, (ie. until it is backed up with Bacula). This means you must make sure volume groups have sufficient unallocated space for the needed snapshots.  Nevertheless, Bacula jobs can be configured to run scripts before and after the backup so the LVM snapshot creation can be automated. That said, both methods are useful in different ways. LVM snapshots are great for disaster recovery or anything where restore can be an all-or-nothing process. On the other hand, for a file server VM where there is a need to restore that single file that a user accidentally deleted, LVM snapshots require more admin intervention. After restoring the snapshot it has to be mounted and the requested file found and somehow copied over to the VM. With bacula-fd running on the VM, restoring a subset of files/directories is easier and more fire-and-forget, because all that need be done is start the restore from the Bacula console. I recommend installing bacula-fd on file server VMs and using LVM snapshots for other VMs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out:
• 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity
• Requirements for releasing software faster
• Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users