Hello Yateen, > We need to host bacula-dir, bacula-sd and PostgreSQL on different servers, > what > is an efficient architecture amongst the two options given below:
> 1. Hosting bacula-dir and PostgreSQL together on one host, bacula-sd on > another > host > 2. Hosting bacula-dir on one host, bacula-sd and PostgreSQL together on > another > host IMHO one should only spam machines if required by the sizing (https://www.bacula.lat/bacula-sizing/?lang=en), or for network optimization (e.g. a SD closer to the FDs in a remote network). A SD is sufficient to backup about 400 machines. Other than that you will use more resources and have a larger surface of possible vulnrerabilities (the oposite of the hardening technique). But again, it is just my opinion. If you still need to make this splti I would go for option "A. Hosting bacula-dir and PostgreSQL together on one host, bacula-sd on another host", because it will be more pratical to manage the database creation and configuration, one less network service and a little bit safer. Director and DB also require different types of machines resources. > Thanks, Regards, > Yateen Bhagat -- MSc Heitor Faria (Miami/USA) Bacula LATAM CIO mobile1: + 1 909 655-8971 mobile2: + 55 61 98268-4220 [ https://www.linkedin.com/in/msc-heitor-faria-5ba51b3 ] [ http://www.bacula.com.br/ ] América Latina [ http://bacula.lat/ | bacula.lat ] | [ http://www.bacula.com.br/ | bacula.com.br ]
_______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
