Am 15.09.26 um 18:50 schrieb Arno Lehmann via Bacula-users:
Hi Stefan,
Am 15.09.2026 um 17:26 schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger via Bacula-users:
I am perfectly aware that mounting NFS via Wireguard VPN is out of
scope here!
Probably a topic nobody wants to have on scope :-)
exactly ;-)
But I'd like to ask how to configure the Storage device in Bacula(ris)
to at least get rid of errors there, maybe.
As far as I understand Bacula-SD is able to trigger the mounting of a
filesystem before accessing the storage device.
Personally, i'd try to avoid that.
Have you tried automounting?
Not in this case, but I know what you suggest.
I have to roll back a bit: the mounting isn't the problem here, as you
also understand.
The share is mounted fine by systemd even with a "legacy fstab entry".
The issue is the connection, not the mounting itself.
Also, I'd probably run a dedicated SD process for such unreliable
mounts, so it's less disruptive if there's a long timeout (NFS should be
"hard" mounted IMO) which could block the SD thread and in consequence
cause issues for other devices, too.
Yep. I have it hard-mounted and played with some options, but it just
doesn't behave yet.
So I assume this relates to the "user" option of nfs filesystems in
fstab ?
Yes. Combined with extra configuration which I would try to avoid.
Understood, I fully agree.
Explicitly setting rsize and wsize is most of the time counterproductive
IMO.
OK
Maybe nfs isn't the right protocol here.
I suppose so. Something inherently resilient against timeouts and
unreliable connections would be more useful. File systems usually are
*not* designed for that use case.
You could try using an S3 endpoint, but Bacula's native S3 object
storage support will still require considerable local storage as it
decouples backup and final object upload.
hmm.
The goal is: "copy Bacula volumes from the NFS-mounted storage in the
server site to the NAS in the office (mounted *somehow*)"
Maybe I should try to let the NASes sync that share with NAS-tools ...
and don't use Bacula-SD for the 2nd NAS. It just would be comfortable to
have everything in Bacularis for overview and handling.
The usual protocols are CIFS and NFS on these devices ... I wonder if I
could mount NAS2 via iscsi instead. More hours of tests ahead, it seems.
Hopefully this gives you ideas at least -- a simple, reliable solution
is probably a bit unrealistic for your scenario :-)
Thanks for your suggestions! "Simple and reliable" is a goal I rarely
reach ;-)
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
