On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Ivan Adzhubey wrote: > I have a Linux NFS fileserver which has to be backed up to a bacula server on > another Linux box. The fileserver in question exports everything that's > needed to be backed up so all files are actually accessible on bacula server > via NFS as well. Should I run my backups via a remote bacula-fd client on the > fileserver or via local client on the bacula box (reading from NFS-mounted > tree)
On the fileserver, definitely. >, which method do you think will work with faster data transfers? I can > try both and benchmark them of course but would appreciate if anyone done a > similar setup already and can share experience. Bacula client to fileserver will be faster, less error-prone and less prone to permissions problems. Bacula backups of remote-mounted filesystems should only be attempted as a last resort. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
