On 09/08/17 10:39, Dan Langille wrote: >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:45 PM, Phil Stracchino <ph...@caerllewys.net >> >> I'm curious. What do you see as the advantage of this layout?
> ### > > If the Pool is no longer required, it is easy to delete. Dividing data > up this way > it's always a good idea, because of the flexibility for future > manipulation it provides. > > If these were all on separate devices, you'd get better concurrent > throughput. > > Full backups are usually bigger, incremental backups are usually > smaller, so you > could just recordsize accordingly. > > If you assigned each client to a different pool, deleting their backups > when the > client leaves is now a simple matter of deleting the appropriate ZFS > datasets. > > If you want to move a pool to a different bacula-sd, you move that data set. > > ### Makes sense. :) -- Phil Stracchino Babylon Communications ph...@caerllewys.net p...@co.ordinate.org Landline: +1.603.293.8485 Mobile: +1.603.998.6958 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
