[Rear-users] Rear development questions
schlomo at schapiro.org
Mon Aug 30 23:56:45 CEST 2010
IMHO (really, only my personal opinion), OBDR is always a package of ISO+backup
on tape. I would think that if somebody would want to restore not from tape that
then they would not really want to use a tape to just boot a small ISO image.
Seems like a huge waste.
I actually would prefer if OBDR would integrate into the "rear mkbackup"
workflow because that is what it is doing and I believe that it should be
possible to put the OBDR stuff into ReaR in such a way that it will be enabled
or something like that.
Possibly one could say
in case it should be possible to put the backup on tape but have the boot media
elsewhere (e.g. OUTPUT=ISO).
In any case, this would really match the original ReaR design philosophy...
Maybe you can tell us why you need a separate workflow for OBDR?
On 30/08/10 17:43, Dag Wieers wrote:
> I have a few questions regarding workflows. We have now created an
> 'mkobdr' workflow, but this workflow doesn't just write the rescue ISO to
> tape, it also performs a full backup to that same tape.
> However, I am not sure that everyone using OBDR wants to use it also as a
> backup mechanism.
> Similarly, since we also have a Bacula backup solution, for recovery we
> may want to do a full recovery from tape (in certain cases) or perform a
> full recovery from Bacula.
> So the questions are:
> - Should we create an 'mkobdr' and 'mkobdrbackup' workflow for both
> situations ? I'd like to not have to change the config-file in order to
> change between both actions.
> - Can we create a different recovery workflows for doing a full restore
> from tape and a restore from Bacula ?
> In fact, at the moment we prefer that the Bacula restore is done manually
> after restoring the partitioning/filesystems. But maybe in the future
> there might be a generic way to recover from Bacula ?
More information about the rear-users