Hello, wt., 7 kwi 2020 o 14:40 Josh Fisher <jfis...@pvct.com> napisał(a):
> > On 4/7/2020 7:20 AM, Radosław Korzeniewski wrote: > > Hello, > > wt., 7 kwi 2020 o 09:38 Shaligram Bhagat, Yateen (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) < > yateen.shaligram_bha...@nokia.com> napisał(a): > >> Hi, >> >> >> >> The issue is resolved after I increased the number of devices under a >> filechanger. >> >> Nevertheless, the suggestion to keep the file server and the bacula-sd on >> the same host is good one. >> > > If you are using backup to tape then yes, running a dedicated bacula-sd on > file server is a good recommendation. > > Also true if the file server in question is only for the backup volumes. > I assume a "file server" mentioned above is not a server which only holds backup volume files but a common sense of this term like storing user profiles, documents, production files, photos, movies, etc. If the "file server" holds only backup volumes, then I personally do not name it "file server" but a backup server. Exporting backup volume files used by SD without a proper operational synchronization is not a good idea. It does not harm your backups when exported as read-only, but full-access... > > But! If you backup to file volumes and disks mounted directly on this file > server then it is - generally - not recommended. In the worst case scenario > you can lose all your data including backups. Be aware. > > Yes. It would never be a good idea to have backup volume files and data on > the same set of physical disks. > NO, it doesn't matter if it is the same physical disk, any number of separate devices, lvm or raid groups or just a network filesystem mounted remotely. If it is available for writing with a standard file io api then it exposes a huge risk! You should never do that. best regards -- Radosław Korzeniewski rados...@korzeniewski.net
_______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
