[Rear-users] Rear development questions

Dag Wieers 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 
country ;-))

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 mailing list