On 09/16/10 16:22, David Noriega wrote:
> Its an idea, but not what I asked. I would have gone with a completely
> disked based backup, but that kind of hardware is expensive to do it
> right. I asked about multiplexing. I figure I could take /home and
> break it down into /home/[a-k] or something.
David Noriega wrote:
> Its an idea, but not what I asked. I would have gone with a completely
> disked based backup, but that kind of hardware is expensive to do it
> right. I asked about multiplexing. I figure I could take /home and
My apologies, I distinctly thought you said "as much data as the
Its an idea, but not what I asked. I would have gone with a completely
disked based backup, but that kind of hardware is expensive to do it
right. I asked about multiplexing. I figure I could take /home and
break it down into /home/[a-k] or something. Break /home into say four
pieces but it doesn't
David Noriega wrote:
> both drives and 2) has as much data as these drives can take pouring
> into them, since this is taking too long to do a backup. I've read a
One solution to feed your drives at full speed, is to build a low cost
server containing an array of SATA drives, sufficient to hold
I need some help coming up with a good backup strategy for our
situation. I have about 10TB of user home directories(and about the
same for lab shares). I've gone through the manual, tutorials, etc and
have gotten the basics of Bacula working. I have it setup using our
SL48 and its currently backin
