[Rear-users] Rear development questions
schlomo at schapiro.org
Tue Aug 31 10:48:36 CEST 2010
(splitting my answer for easy reading)...
On 31/08/10 09:02, Dag Wieers wrote:
> Both Bacula and Rear use tapes. So we'd use the same infrastructure for
> both restore options. (Not that I personally have anything to say in this,
> but at least if they have a tape-drive in every machine, we might as well
> ruse that single recovery method across the field).
Not that it is really my business... But if you talk about a single-server
full-restore scenario, why would you want to use Bacula for a
full-backup-on-tape instead of just tar? What would be the benefit of Bacula in
this instance? Or do you want to use Bacula to append incremental backups to the
tape? Sounds like a restore-time horror to me (seek your tape drive to death?).
IMHO the whole point and real strength of the tape is streaming and that you get
perfectly well through tar...
My point is that I would expect OBDR to be really only an issue with internal
backup and not related to any backup that does not reside on the tape.
While of course we can code all and everything, I would always challenge the
solution to be also "common sense" ...
PS: As a Systems Architect the last point somehow makes up 70% of my job :-)
More information about the rear-users