In response to Ivan Adzhubey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
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), 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.
It's going to depend on where resources are most available.
If you run the FD on the NFS server, it will use CPU to do the compression,
but will use less network bandwith.
If you run the FD on the bacula server and pull the data via NFS, the
Bacula server will use all the CPU to compress but more network traffic
will be necessary to pull the uncompressed files through NFS.
Also, if you use NFS you won't be able to take advantage of things
such as filesystem snapshots. Also, depending on your NFS export
settings, you may hit permissions problems.
So which is best depends on which of those tradeoffs is most important
to you. Also, whether or not you actually use software compression will
change the balance.
--
Bill Moran
http://www.potentialtech.com
-
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
