[Rear-users] Rear development questions
dag at wieers.com
Tue Aug 31 16:43:27 CEST 2010
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Schlomo Schapiro wrote:
> (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...
Bacula is used for regular backups, Rear/OBDR could be use for disaster
recovery (using Bacula to restore) or used for creating a one tape copy
that can be send to the main office to debug/troubleshoot.
Branches and main office are connected by a poor link (think 3rd world
So we want to use Rear for two reasons, one is to have an easy way for
restoring from Bacula and the other is to have a mechanism to replicate an
environment at some other location. (Tapes are considered a better
alternative than shipping harddisks)
> 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.
Why not ? If you have both options, it is at least much more convenient
than putting a cd-writer in every machine and have someone handle CD-RW's
for the sole purpose of having a disaster recover media.
Again, this is not my decision. But given the fact that they have
tape-drives in 1000+ machines already, the branches are largely
disconnected (except for slow remote management) and because every of the
200+ branches has someone responsible for the system, using the tape as a
boot-device is probably more practical.
> While of course we can code all and everything, I would always challenge the
> solution to be also "common sense" ...
I guess common sense depends on the environment and context. We'd like to
use rear for 2, or possible even 3 different use-cases and I don't see why
I have to choose only one.
PS 'We' here means the people that decide things.
-- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
More information about the rear-users