Re: [Bacula-users] Bacula 9.0.3 on Debian 9.1 with OpenSSL-1.0.2l doubts

[Carsten Leonhardt]

Hi Kern,

Kern Sibbald  writes:

> It has been a long time since the Bacula Community version supports
> SQLite3.  The code is still there, but it simply does not perform
> well, and so it is not at all suitable for a Bacula production
> environment.  The only two officially supported databases are MySQL
> and PostgreSQL, and providing that MariaDB remains reasonably
> compatible with MySQL, it will also work.

> It does not make any sense to hold up a Bacula release because of some
> problem with SQLite3.   If you do decide to hold up the release,
> please let me know so that I can completely remove the code in 9.0.4.

I would greatly prefer to be able to give users of Debian and it's
derivatives a warning before sqlite3 support is removed, especially
because sqlite/sqlite3 had been the default database in Debian
installations since the first Debian release that included Bacula
(Debian 3.1 in 2005). My predecessors in Bacula package maintenance
never changed that default. While I might be able to warn Debian users
by updating the current Bacula version in Debian stable to include such
a warning, that would not reach users of Debian derivatives (like
Ubuntu).

Anyway, attached to the bug reports (2305 + 2306) are now the patches
that I intend to use for the Debian packages.

 - Carsten

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] 9.0.3 static client

[Dan Langille]

On Aug 28, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Dan Langille  wrote:
> 
>> On Aug 28, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Dan Langille > > wrote:
>> 
>> Have you build the static client for 9.0.3?
>> 
>> In my testing, two things have come to light:
>> 
>> 1 - file names have changed: static-bacula-fd (was bacula-fd-static) & 
>> static-bconsole (was bconsole-static).
>> 
>> 2 - binaries are not installed. Perhaps this is related to issue 1.
>> 
>> What has been your experience?
> 
> And my most recent test, after building bacula-bat worked..
> 
> https://services.unixathome.org/poudriere/data/110amd64-working/2017-08-28_17h39m49s/logs/bacula-client-static-9.0.3.log
>  
> 
> 
> I have no ide why building bacula-bat changed the outcome.

Please ignore my previous message.  As you can see, the build which succeeded 
was bacula client static for 7.x, not 9.x

My apologies for the noise.


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] 9.0.3 static client

[Dan Langille]

> On Aug 28, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Dan Langille  wrote:
> 
> Have you build the static client for 9.0.3?
> 
> In my testing, two things have come to light:
> 
> 1 - file names have changed: static-bacula-fd (was bacula-fd-static) & 
> static-bconsole (was bconsole-static).
> 
> 2 - binaries are not installed. Perhaps this is related to issue 1.
> 
> What has been your experience?

And my most recent test, after building bacula-bat worked..

https://services.unixathome.org/poudriere/data/110amd64-working/2017-08-28_17h39m49s/logs/bacula-client-static-9.0.3.log
 


I have no ide why building bacula-bat changed the outcome.


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

[Bacula-users] 9.0.3 static client

[Dan Langille]

Have you build the static client for 9.0.3?

In my testing, two things have come to light:

1 - file names have changed: static-bacula-fd (was bacula-fd-static) & 
static-bconsole (was bconsole-static).

2 - binaries are not installed. Perhaps this is related to issue 1.

What has been your experience?

-- 
Dan Langille - BSDCan / PGCon
d...@langille.org


Full build at 
https://services.unixathome.org/poudriere/data/110amd64-working/2017-08-28_16h56m23s/logs/errors/bacula9-client-static-9.0.3.log
 


From the above URL:

Configuration on Mon Aug 28 16:56:50 UTC 2017:

   Host: amd64-portbld-freebsd11.0 -- freebsd 
11.0-RELEASE-p8
   Bacula version:   Bacula 9.0.3 (08 August 2017)
   Source code location: .
   Install binaries: /usr/local/sbin
   Install libraries:/usr/local/lib
   Install config files: /usr/local/etc
   Scripts directory:/usr/local/etc
   Archive directory:/tmp
   Working directory:/opt/bacula/working
   PID directory:/var/run
   Subsys directory: /var/run/subsys
   Man directory:/usr/local/man
   Data directory:   /usr/local/share
   Plugin directory: /usr/local/lib
   C Compiler:   cc version
   C++ Compiler: /usr/bin/c++ version
   Compiler flags:-O2 -pipe  -fstack-protector -fno-strict-aliasing 
-x c++ -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti
   Linker flags:   -L/usr/local/lib -L/usr/local/lib 
-Wl,-rpath,/usr/local/lib -fstack-protector
   Libraries:-lpthread 
   Statically Linked Tools:  no
   Statically Linked FD: yes
   Statically Linked SD: no
   Statically Linked DIR:no
   Statically Linked CONS:   yes
   Database backends:None
   Database port: 
   Database name:bacula
   Database user:bacula
   Database SSL options: 

   Job Output Email: root@localhost
   Traceback Email:  root@localhost
   SMTP Host Address:localhost

   Director Port:9101
   File daemon Port: 9102
   Storage daemon Port:  9103

   Director User:
   Director Group:   
   Storage Daemon User:  
   Storage DaemonGroup:  
   File Daemon User: 
   File Daemon Group:

   Large file support:   yes
   Bacula conio support: yes -ltinfo
   readline support: no 
   TCP Wrappers support: no 
   TLS support:  yes
   Encryption support:   yes
   ZLIB support: yes
   LZO support:  yes
   enable-smartalloc:yes
   enable-lockmgr:   no
   bat support:  no
   client-only:  yes
   build-dird:   no
   build-stored: no
   Plugin support:   no
   AFS support:  no
   ACL support:  yes
   XATTR support:yes
   systemd support:  no 
   Batch insert enabled: None





--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] cloud command?

[Kern Sibbald]

  
  
The cloud driver has not yet been released.  I expect that it
will be out in January 2018.
Kern


On 08/28/2017 10:13 AM, KEN SAWADA
  wrote:


  Hi!

I installed bacula 9.0.3.
I saw bconsole's help and found a cloud command.
Is this a command that can be backed up to AWS, Azure, etc?
Sample configuration file could not be found on bacula.org.
Do you have samples?
  
  
  
  
  --
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
  
  
  
  ___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users



  


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] Bacula 9.0.3 on Debian 9.1 with OpenSSL-1.0.2l doubts

[Kern Sibbald]

  
  
Thanks.
I will fix that right away.
Best regards,
Kern


On 08/27/2017 07:22 PM, Davide Franco
  wrote:


  
Hello,


Just for your information, the main manual for
  version 9.0.3 still mention SQLite.



  
  
  
  
  
  http://www.bacula.org/9.0.x-manuals/en/main/System_Requirements.html
  
  
  Best regards
  

  Davide



  On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 at 15:14, Sven Hartge 
wrote:
  
  On
27.08.2017 14:42, Heitor Faria wrote:
> Hello, Carsten,
>
 So, is it possible install Bacula 9.0.3 in
Debian 9.1 or similar SO with
 newers OpenSSL versions using this way, or
this is not possible?
>>>
>>> I just checked and the current in-development
version of the
>>> Debian-official packages of 9.0.3 compile in a
Jessie-Backports chroot()
>>> for me.
>>>
>>> So after the release of Bacula 9.0.3 in Debian
(soonish, I hope)
>>
>> Before I can release Bacula 9.0.3 to Debian
unstable, bugs 2305 and 2306
>> about sqlite3 database creation/update need to be
addressed.
>
> SQLite isn't supported anymore by the Bacula
developers.
> This was widely advertised in previous threads and
changelog.

We know. But the code is still in (for now) and it can at
least serve
for a non-production mini-installation or for a quick
evaluation setup.

The Debian packages document the state of SQLite in Bacula
as
unsupported and to not use them for anything mildly serious.

Grüße,
Sven.


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's
most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
  

  
  
  
  
  --
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
  
  
  
  ___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users



  


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] Bacula 9.0.3 on Debian 9.1 with OpenSSL-1.0.2l doubts

[Kern Sibbald]

Hello Carsten,

It has been a long time since the Bacula Community version supports 
SQLite3.  The code is still there, but it simply does not perform well, 
and so it is not at all suitable for a Bacula production environment.  
The only two officially supported databases are MySQL and PostgreSQL, 
and providing that MariaDB remains reasonably compatible with MySQL, it 
will also work.


It does not make any sense to hold up a Bacula release because of some 
problem with SQLite3.   If you do decide to hold up the release, please 
let me know so that I can completely remove the code in 9.0.4.


Best regards,

Kern


On 08/27/2017 02:25 PM, Carsten Leonhardt wrote:

Sven Hartge  writes:


On 23.08.2017 18:20, Wanderlei Huttel wrote:


So, is it possible install Bacula 9.0.3 in Debian 9.1 or similar SO with
newers OpenSSL versions using this way, or this is not possible?

I just checked and the current in-development version of the
Debian-official packages of 9.0.3 compile in a Jessie-Backports chroot()
for me.

So after the release of Bacula 9.0.3 in Debian (soonish, I hope)

Before I can release Bacula 9.0.3 to Debian unstable, bugs 2305 and 2306
about sqlite3 database creation/update need to be addressed.

If you want to compile yourself, try installing libssl1.0-dev instead of
libssl-dev.

  - Carsten

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users




--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] Anyone using AWS tape gateway or other similar service?

[Phil Stracchino]

On 08/28/17 07:50, Josh Fisher wrote:
> I have considered a cloud solution as an off-site storage, but abandoned
> it for now for due to that very reason. Cloud storage is simply not yet
> fast enough, or I should say that the Internet is not yet fast enough.
> What if the restore would require multiple TB? What if even incremental
> backups required large transfers, say for some data collection services,
> busy mail servers, etc.? At some point the Bacula service would require
> a dedicated Internet service or else dedicated bandwidth. Where I live,
> that would make cloud storage the most expensive media.
[...]
> Nevertheless, I do believe cloud storage is the future for backups, or
> at least as off-site backup storage. It is just a matter of bandwidth
> becoming faster and cheaper.


I simply do not see Internet service — at least in the US — increasing
in speed faster than robust, non-volatile local storage increases in
capacity-per-unit-cost.  Most of the US does not HAVE Internet service
that meets the FCC's working definition of broadband, most non-business
customers who *do* have access to broadband have only one choice, and at
that ISPs have dragged their heels for decades on delivering.  The
telcos accepted vast amounts of government funding to deliver high-speed
Internet service to US consumers, and spent it on building out cellular
infrastructure instead because they could make more money off that.
Verizon finally started rolling out fiber service to the home in 2005,
and then five years after that they basically stopped expansion and sold
off all of their northern New England physical plant to Fairpoint
Communications because they were making more money off cellular.
Fairpoint almost collapsed absorbing it, hasn't run a single mile of
fiber since, promised to have broadband throughout New Hampshire within
five years, and still hasn't delivered.  Fairpoint has abandoned two
infrastructure plans and has finally fallen back on ADSL over copper
phone lines, which is laughable as a broadband solution.  You may be
able to get a couple of megabits down and half a megabit up if you're
close enough to your nearest telco central office.

I have small-business internet service through my local cable carrier,
the only broadband choice available to me short of having them run a
fiber link to me all the way from Boston, and with 4.5 megabits upload
it would take me 27 days to run a full backup to the cloud, saturating
my uplink the entire time.  Then I'd have three to four days of usable
Internet before the next full backup.  And the odds are, the faster a
connection you can afford, the more data you have to be backed up, so
there's limits to how well throwing more money at your Internet service
scales.

Typical broadband internet - in the US at least - is going to have to
become at least two full orders of magnitude faster before it is viable
as a backup solution for anything significantly more than local settings
and preferences, your email, and the contents of a typical cluttered
desktop.  If you need *FULL* backups and your only choice is to back up
to the cloud, you're better off doing it by some form of
continuous-incremental scheme such as nightly rsyncs.  The US likes to
think of itself as the world's technological leader, but in terms of
broadband availability nationwide we're almost on a par with North Korea.


-- 
  Phil Stracchino
  Babylon Communications
  ph...@caerllewys.net
  p...@co.ordinate.org
  Landline: +1.603.293.8485
  Mobile:   +1.603.998.6958

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] Anyone using AWS tape gateway or other similar service?

[Luke Salsich]

I agree Josh. As we review this current internet speed limitation more, I
think we will use AWS cloud for servers with small to moderate data size.
For example, a Linux server which manages a web app and has a total disk
size of under 50 GB will go to the cloud.

Servers with storage which requires backup and is over 50 GB we will store
locally.

I'm also going to look into backing up one server using two jobs and two
filesets - one job for large, local storage and one job for small, critical
data for the cloud. I assume this is workable, but I haven't tested the
functionality yet or worked through the logic thoroughly.

The reason I want to look into this is two-job approach is:

1. Cloud storage through AWS Storage Gateway is incredibly cheap, reliable
and easy to scale
2. We need to have critical files stored off-site in case of a local
disaster


---
Luke Salsich

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Josh Fisher  wrote:

>
> On 8/25/2017 1:49 PM, Luke Salsich wrote:
>
>
> One remaining concern which I have (not related to Bacula at all) is the
> time it would take to conduct a complete system restore due to needing to
> transfer the data from AWS to our local. Even with their fast connection, a
> 150 GB transfer could take about 24 hours.
>
> Any thoughts on this or other cloud-based tape backup solutions using
> Bacula?
>
>
> I have considered a cloud solution as an off-site storage, but abandoned
> it for now for due to that very reason. Cloud storage is simply not yet
> fast enough, or I should say that the Internet is not yet fast enough. What
> if the restore would require multiple TB? What if even incremental backups
> required large transfers, say for some data collection services, busy mail
> servers, etc.? At some point the Bacula service would require a dedicated
> Internet service or else dedicated bandwidth. Where I live, that would make
> cloud storage the most expensive media.
>
> Another concern is disaster recovery. Following a disaster, while Internet
> service in the area may be available fairly quickly, full bandwidth to an
> area may not be restored for quite some time, causing a restore to be
> problematic. With physical media, at least systems can be restored to make
> use of what bandwidth is available.
>
> Nevertheless, I do believe cloud storage is the future for backups, or at
> least as off-site backup storage. It is just a matter of bandwidth becoming
> faster and cheaper.
>
>
>
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] cloud command?

[Heitor Faria]

Hello, Ken, 

> I installed bacula 9.0.3.
> I saw bconsole's help and found a cloud command.
> Is this a command that can be backed up to AWS, Azure, etc?
> Sample configuration file could not be found on bacula.org.
> Do you have samples?

Community Bacula 9.0.x has now support to different Storage Drivers, that allow 
special backup data reducing techniques (e.g. aligned volumes for deduplicative 
FS) or special device support, such as Cloud Object Storage. 
However, the Cloud S3 Driver itself is not included in Community Bacula at this 
time. It is available only in Bacula Enterprise Edition. 

Regards, 
-- 
=== 
Heitor Medrado de Faria | EB-1 Visa | LPIC-III | ITIL-F | EMC 05-001| Bacula 
Systems Certified Administrator II 
• Bacula Enterprise does not charge per backup size and has plugins for many 
applications. In the USA: http://bacula.us/ 
• Do you need Bacula training? http://bacula.us/video-classes/ 
+55 61 98268-4220 | http://bacula.us 
=== 
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] Anyone using AWS tape gateway or other similar service?

[Josh Fisher]

On 8/25/2017 1:49 PM, Luke Salsich wrote:


One remaining concern which I have (not related to Bacula at all) is 
the time it would take to conduct a complete system restore due to 
needing to transfer the data from AWS to our local. Even with their 
fast connection, a 150 GB transfer could take about 24 hours.


Any thoughts on this or other cloud-based tape backup solutions using 
Bacula?


I have considered a cloud solution as an off-site storage, but abandoned 
it for now for due to that very reason. Cloud storage is simply not yet 
fast enough, or I should say that the Internet is not yet fast enough. 
What if the restore would require multiple TB? What if even incremental 
backups required large transfers, say for some data collection services, 
busy mail servers, etc.? At some point the Bacula service would require 
a dedicated Internet service or else dedicated bandwidth. Where I live, 
that would make cloud storage the most expensive media.


Another concern is disaster recovery. Following a disaster, while 
Internet service in the area may be available fairly quickly, full 
bandwidth to an area may not be restored for quite some time, causing a 
restore to be problematic. With physical media, at least systems can be 
restored to make use of what bandwidth is available.


Nevertheless, I do believe cloud storage is the future for backups, or 
at least as off-site backup storage. It is just a matter of bandwidth 
becoming faster and cheaper.



--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

[Bacula-users] cloud command?

[KEN SAWADA]

Hi!

I installed bacula 9.0.3.
I saw bconsole's help and found a cloud command.
Is this a command that can be backed up to AWS, Azure, etc?
Sample configuration file could not be found on bacula.org.
Do you have samples?
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users