Gary, Please reply with the output from the following command: sudo iptables -Like
Robert Gerber 402-237-8692 r...@craeon.net On Tue, Sep 2, 2025, 11:22 AM Gary Dale <g...@extremeground.com> wrote: > On 2025-09-02 07:22, Dan Langille wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2025, at 4:06 PM, Gary Dale wrote: > > > >> Can someone please revise the comments to be more reflective of a > >> typical situation? > > Let's say a place uses 127.0.0.1 (or localhost). It's up. It's running. > > > > An FD (client / bacula-fd) is added. Backups work well. Everything is > great. > > > > That's it. You're not adding any more clients. Practically speaking, > you're done. > > > > If you want to add another client, presumably, on another host, it'll be > at, let's say 10.0.0.1 > > > > You configure the job. You run it. > > > > bacula-dir contacts bacula-fd (at 10.0.0.1) and says: > > > > Backup this FileSet to this bacula-sd (127.0.0.1). > > > > Oh. That isn't going to happen. > > > > Other considerations. Using certificates is much easier with hostnames > than IP addresses. > > > > I also suspect many examples, now lost to history, arose before those > comments were added in. > > > > If your situation is working only with 127.0.0.1 and you'd like to > change that, please ask away. > > Once I got the client fd connection working, I started running a backup. > It seems to be working with the sd address as 127.0..0.1. That seems > reasonable since the dir is running on the local host also. > > So I'm still left with the initial question: why do the comments say not > to use localhost and to put in the FQDN, when the only way I've been > able to get it to work is to use 127.0.0.1? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bacula-users mailing list > Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users >
_______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
