Bacula Binaries

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Bacula Binaries

Jaime Ferrer Hepp

Hi Guys;

 

Does anyone knows when the bacula binaries for major linux distributions will be available. I’m planning to upgrade Bacula to the lastes version, but I will want to skip the compilation process.

 

Thanks

 

Jaime Ferrer


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Bacula Binaries

Kern Sibbald
Hello,

We are working on it.  Many of the binaries are already prepared, but the project is being held up because I must first finish an important programming task, then organize the upload and the hard part is making both deb and rpm based repos (probably on Source Forge).  Finally, they must be documented as the file structure where Bacula is installed is the Bacula recommended file structure rather than the rather random and varying locations in the various Linux distributions. I seem to be quite poor in my estimations since there always seems to be something more critical, but I imagine we will have the binaries available by the first of 2017.

Best regards,
Kern

On 11/25/2016 02:44 PM, Jaime Ferrer Hepp wrote:

Hi Guys;

 

Does anyone knows when the bacula binaries for major linux distributions will be available. I’m planning to upgrade Bacula to the lastes version, but I will want to skip the compilation process.

 

Thanks

 

Jaime Ferrer



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Bacula Binaries

Josip Deanovic
On Saturday 2016-11-26 10:00:39 Kern Sibbald wrote:

> Hello,
>
> We are working on it.  Many of the binaries are already prepared, but
> the project is being held up because I must first finish an important
> programming task, then organize the upload and the hard part is making
> both deb and rpm based repos (probably on Source Forge).  Finally, they
> must be documented as the file structure where Bacula is installed is
> the Bacula recommended file structure rather than the rather random and
> varying locations in the various Linux distributions. I seem to be
> quite poor in my estimations since there always seems to be something
> more critical, but I imagine we will have the binaries available by the
> first of 2017.
>
> Best regards,
> Kern


Maybe you could consider using bacula rpm spec file maintained by Simone
Caronni who is also active on this mailinglist and he is maintaining
bacula packages for Fedora (they are also available for different Centos
versions).

I have checked his spec file last year and it seems that his compile
options are almost same as mine own and I haven't found any objections
to his packages.

This could make your work easier.

--
Josip Deanovic

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Bacula Binaries

Kern Sibbald
Many thanks, but the issue is not the spec or deb files.  We have
those.  The problem
is that the standard distributions spray Bacula files all over your
system, and
they spray them in different places.  This makes it *very* hard to support,
and hard to do backups of Bacula itself.  Bacula uses its own
/opt/bacula directory
that permits easy installation, very easy testing of a new version with
rapid
backup, and very easy backup for catastrophic recovery situations.

Best regards,
Kern

On 11/27/2016 04:01 PM, Josip Deanovic wrote:

> On Saturday 2016-11-26 10:00:39 Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> We are working on it.  Many of the binaries are already prepared, but
>> the project is being held up because I must first finish an important
>> programming task, then organize the upload and the hard part is making
>> both deb and rpm based repos (probably on Source Forge).  Finally, they
>> must be documented as the file structure where Bacula is installed is
>> the Bacula recommended file structure rather than the rather random and
>> varying locations in the various Linux distributions. I seem to be
>> quite poor in my estimations since there always seems to be something
>> more critical, but I imagine we will have the binaries available by the
>> first of 2017.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kern
>
> Maybe you could consider using bacula rpm spec file maintained by Simone
> Caronni who is also active on this mailinglist and he is maintaining
> bacula packages for Fedora (they are also available for different Centos
> versions).
>
> I have checked his spec file last year and it seems that his compile
> options are almost same as mine own and I haven't found any objections
> to his packages.
>
> This could make your work easier.
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Bacula Binaries

Jaime Ferrer Hepp
In reply to this post by Josip Deanovic
Thanks Josip, I 'll take a look into it. Mainly what might be helpful is to have bacula-fd binaries for the different linux distributions and version. Regarding bacula-dir and bacula-sd I prefer to use Kern's suggestion to have all files under /opt/bacula. Today I have it using the "RedHat standard" and it is really cumbersome to maintain and update.




Jaime Ferrer Hepp
Ingesoft Ltda.


-----Mensaje original-----
De: Josip Deanovic [mailto:[hidden email]]
Enviado el: domingo, 27 de noviembre de 2016 12:02
Para: [hidden email]
Asunto: Re: [Bacula-users] Bacula Binaries

On Saturday 2016-11-26 10:00:39 Kern Sibbald wrote:

> Hello,
>
> We are working on it.  Many of the binaries are already prepared, but
> the project is being held up because I must first finish an important
> programming task, then organize the upload and the hard part is making
> both deb and rpm based repos (probably on Source Forge).  Finally,
> they must be documented as the file structure where Bacula is
> installed is the Bacula recommended file structure rather than the
> rather random and varying locations in the various Linux
> distributions. I seem to be quite poor in my estimations since there
> always seems to be something more critical, but I imagine we will have
> the binaries available by the first of 2017.
>
> Best regards,
> Kern


Maybe you could consider using bacula rpm spec file maintained by Simone Caronni who is also active on this mailinglist and he is maintaining bacula packages for Fedora (they are also available for different Centos versions).

I have checked his spec file last year and it seems that his compile options are almost same as mine own and I haven't found any objections to his packages.

This could make your work easier.

--
Josip Deanovic

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Bacula Binaries

Jaime Ferrer Hepp
In reply to this post by Kern Sibbald

Thanks Kern for your reply. I’m looking forward to it.

 

 

Jaime Ferrer Hepp

 

De: Kern Sibbald [mailto:[hidden email]]
Enviado el: sábado, 26 de noviembre de 2016 6:01
Para: Jaime Ferrer Hepp; [hidden email]
Asunto: Re: [Bacula-users] Bacula Binaries

 

Hello,

We are working on it.  Many of the binaries are already prepared, but the project is being held up because I must first finish an important programming task, then organize the upload and the hard part is making both deb and rpm based repos (probably on Source Forge).  Finally, they must be documented as the file structure where Bacula is installed is the Bacula recommended file structure rather than the rather random and varying locations in the various Linux distributions. I seem to be quite poor in my estimations since there always seems to be something more critical, but I imagine we will have the binaries available by the first of 2017.

Best regards,
Kern

On 11/25/2016 02:44 PM, Jaime Ferrer Hepp wrote:

Hi Guys;

 

Does anyone knows when the bacula binaries for major linux distributions will be available. I’m planning to upgrade Bacula to the lastes version, but I will want to skip the compilation process.

 

Thanks

 

Jaime Ferrer




------------------------------------------------------------------------------




_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Bacula Binaries

Josip Deanovic
In reply to this post by Jaime Ferrer Hepp
On Monday 2016-11-28 11:56:25 Jaime Ferrer Hepp wrote:
> Thanks Josip, I 'll take a look into it. Mainly what might be helpful is
> to have bacula-fd binaries for the different linux distributions and
> version. Regarding bacula-dir and bacula-sd I prefer to use Kern's
> suggestion to have all files under /opt/bacula. Today I have it using
> the "RedHat standard" and it is really cumbersome to maintain and
> update.

I don't know. It's all the same for me if all the paths are properly set.

If all the libraries, binaries and manuals are at the correct locations
they should already exist in the relevant path environment variable and
you shouldn't experience any problems whether you are using /opt/bacula
or /usr as your prefix during the configure and compile time.

In case you want to check the content of the bacula rpm package you can
simply issue the command rpm -ql <name of the package> and that's it.

I understand that the bacula developers have additional things to care
abut because they need to make it easier to support but for the end users
it shouldn't be a problem or at least I am unable to see it.

--
Josip Deanovic

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Bacula Binaries

Jaime Ferrer Hepp
Yes, you  are correct. But having all under /opt/bacula ease the process of disaster recovery, despite the fact that location of files varies depending on the distribution.



Jaime Ferrer Hepp
Ingesoft Ltda.


-----Mensaje original-----
De: Josip Deanovic [mailto:[hidden email]]
Enviado el: lunes, 28 de noviembre de 2016 9:11
Para: [hidden email]
Asunto: Re: [Bacula-users] Bacula Binaries

On Monday 2016-11-28 11:56:25 Jaime Ferrer Hepp wrote:
> Thanks Josip, I 'll take a look into it. Mainly what might be helpful
> is to have bacula-fd binaries for the different linux distributions
> and version. Regarding bacula-dir and bacula-sd I prefer to use Kern's
> suggestion to have all files under /opt/bacula. Today I have it using
> the "RedHat standard" and it is really cumbersome to maintain and
> update.

I don't know. It's all the same for me if all the paths are properly set.

If all the libraries, binaries and manuals are at the correct locations they should already exist in the relevant path environment variable and you shouldn't experience any problems whether you are using /opt/bacula or /usr as your prefix during the configure and compile time.

In case you want to check the content of the bacula rpm package you can simply issue the command rpm -ql <name of the package> and that's it.

I understand that the bacula developers have additional things to care abut because they need to make it easier to support but for the end users it shouldn't be a problem or at least I am unable to see it.

--
Josip Deanovic

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Bacula Binaries

Josip Deanovic
On Monday 2016-11-28 12:22:36 Jaime Ferrer Hepp wrote:
> Yes, you  are correct. But having all under /opt/bacula ease the process
> of disaster recovery, despite the fact that location of files varies
> depending on the distribution.


For the disaster recovery I am starting with the premise that everything
is lost except the volumes in the secondary backup storage. From those
volumes using the bextract tool I am able to get the bacula server up and
running.

After that I am using centos rescue environment (provided as a part of
the installation dvd) and statically compiled bacula binary.

--
Josip Deanovic

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Bacula Binaries

Dimitri Maziuk
In reply to this post by Kern Sibbald
On 2016-11-28 02:59, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> Many thanks, but the issue is not the spec or deb files.  We have
> those.  The problem
> is that the standard distributions spray Bacula files all over your
> system, and
> they spray them in different places.

You might want to take a look at snap packages then. It's not clear
when/if RH starts supporting them, but if there is enough momentum it'll
be sooner rather than later.

Dima




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Bacula Binaries

Kern Sibbald
In reply to this post by Josip Deanovic
Hello Josip,

Well for end users such as myself, I do consider having Bacula all over
your system a problem.  First, if I want to bring up a new version, I
simply do:

cp -a /opt/bacula /opt/old-bacula
save the database

then install a new version.  If something goes wrong, it is easy to roll
back to the previous version.  In addition, when saving the database
dump every evening, I have Bacula backup the database dump plus
everything in /opt/bacula with the exclusion of a few directories such
as /opt/bacula/working, ...

In case of an emergency, it is then easy to get back the database and
all of Bacula including the conf files very easily.  The same can be
done when the Bacula files are sprayed all over your system, bit
generally, you either need to do a big backup or you need to know
exactly what files to backup and where they are.  It is easy to forget
one, especially if you upgrade and we release a new file or you decide
to modify mtx-changer or something ...

That said, you are free to do it your way :-)

Best regards,
Kern

On 11/28/2016 01:10 PM, Josip Deanovic wrote:

> On Monday 2016-11-28 11:56:25 Jaime Ferrer Hepp wrote:
>> Thanks Josip, I 'll take a look into it. Mainly what might be helpful is
>> to have bacula-fd binaries for the different linux distributions and
>> version. Regarding bacula-dir and bacula-sd I prefer to use Kern's
>> suggestion to have all files under /opt/bacula. Today I have it using
>> the "RedHat standard" and it is really cumbersome to maintain and
>> update.
> I don't know. It's all the same for me if all the paths are properly set.
>
> If all the libraries, binaries and manuals are at the correct locations
> they should already exist in the relevant path environment variable and
> you shouldn't experience any problems whether you are using /opt/bacula
> or /usr as your prefix during the configure and compile time.
>
> In case you want to check the content of the bacula rpm package you can
> simply issue the command rpm -ql <name of the package> and that's it.
>
> I understand that the bacula developers have additional things to care
> abut because they need to make it easier to support but for the end users
> it shouldn't be a problem or at least I am unable to see it.
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Bacula Binaries

Kern Sibbald
In reply to this post by Josip Deanovic
On 11/28/2016 01:33 PM, Josip Deanovic wrote:
> On Monday 2016-11-28 12:22:36 Jaime Ferrer Hepp wrote:
>> Yes, you  are correct. But having all under /opt/bacula ease the process
>> of disaster recovery, despite the fact that location of files varies
>> depending on the distribution.
>
> For the disaster recovery I am starting with the premise that everything
> is lost except the volumes in the secondary backup storage. From those
> volumes using the bextract tool I am able to get the bacula server up and
> running.

For me it is easier to use the .bsr file that Bacula emails me each
evening to get back the complete Bacula environment.  No need to use
bextract.

>
> After that I am using centos rescue environment (provided as a part of
> the installation dvd) and statically compiled bacula binary.
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Bacula Binaries

Josh Fisher
In reply to this post by Kern Sibbald

On 11/28/2016 12:43 PM, Kern Sibbald wrote:

> Hello Josip,
>
> Well for end users such as myself, I do consider having Bacula all over
> your system a problem.  First, if I want to bring up a new version, I
> simply do:
>
> cp -a /opt/bacula /opt/old-bacula
> save the database
>
> then install a new version.  If something goes wrong, it is easy to roll
> back to the previous version.  In addition, when saving the database
> dump every evening, I have Bacula backup the database dump plus
> everything in /opt/bacula with the exclusion of a few directories such
> as /opt/bacula/working, ...

I would add that the single directory approach is essential when running
Bacula daemons in a high availability environment where all of the
Bacula files must be on shared storage available to multiple cluster
nodes. The cluster config is far simpler when there is only a single
device and filesystem involved during a failover. When the files are
scattered across the system, they are usually also scattered across
multiple filesystems. In order to use Simone's RHEL RPMs, I have had to
create numerous symlinks and force the files to live on a single shared
storage device, (a DRBD device in this case). I, for one, welcome a RPM
with everything in /opt/bacula. That said, Simone's work with RHEL RPMs
has been greatly appreciated.


> In case of an emergency, it is then easy to get back the database and
> all of Bacula including the conf files very easily.  The same can be
> done when the Bacula files are sprayed all over your system, bit
> generally, you either need to do a big backup or you need to know
> exactly what files to backup and where they are.  It is easy to forget
> one, especially if you upgrade and we release a new file or you decide
> to modify mtx-changer or something ...
>
> That said, you are free to do it your way :-)
>
> Best regards,
> Kern
>
> On 11/28/2016 01:10 PM, Josip Deanovic wrote:
>> On Monday 2016-11-28 11:56:25 Jaime Ferrer Hepp wrote:
>>> Thanks Josip, I 'll take a look into it. Mainly what might be helpful is
>>> to have bacula-fd binaries for the different linux distributions and
>>> version. Regarding bacula-dir and bacula-sd I prefer to use Kern's
>>> suggestion to have all files under /opt/bacula. Today I have it using
>>> the "RedHat standard" and it is really cumbersome to maintain and
>>> update.
>> I don't know. It's all the same for me if all the paths are properly set.
>>
>> If all the libraries, binaries and manuals are at the correct locations
>> they should already exist in the relevant path environment variable and
>> you shouldn't experience any problems whether you are using /opt/bacula
>> or /usr as your prefix during the configure and compile time.
>>
>> In case you want to check the content of the bacula rpm package you can
>> simply issue the command rpm -ql <name of the package> and that's it.
>>
>> I understand that the bacula developers have additional things to care
>> abut because they need to make it easier to support but for the end users
>> it shouldn't be a problem or at least I am unable to see it.
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bacula-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Bacula Binaries

Josip Deanovic
In reply to this post by Kern Sibbald
On Monday 2016-11-28 18:45:10 Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On 11/28/2016 01:33 PM, Josip Deanovic wrote:
> > For the disaster recovery I am starting with the premise that
> > everything is lost except the volumes in the secondary backup
> > storage. From those volumes using the bextract tool I am able to get
> > the bacula server up and running.
>
> For me it is easier to use the .bsr file that Bacula emails me each
> evening to get back the complete Bacula environment.  No need to use
> bextract.

I have them copied to the secondary location using admin job every
morning after all backups are done but I didn't use them because I
am not fully familiar with the bsr files (although I understand their
format otherwise I wouldn't be able to use bextract to specify a
specific job).

I will have to get some time to study bsr files and their usage.
Shame on me for failing to do so years ago.

--
Josip Deanovic

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Bacula Binaries

Josip Deanovic
In reply to this post by Kern Sibbald
On Monday 2016-11-28 18:43:14 Kern Sibbald wrote:

> Hello Josip,
>
> Well for end users such as myself, I do consider having Bacula all over
> your system a problem.  First, if I want to bring up a new version, I
> simply do:
>
> cp -a /opt/bacula /opt/old-bacula
> save the database
>
> then install a new version.  If something goes wrong, it is easy to
> roll  back to the previous version.  In addition, when saving the
> database dump every evening, I have Bacula backup the database dump
> plus everything in /opt/bacula with the exclusion of a few directories
> such as /opt/bacula/working, ...
>
> In case of an emergency, it is then easy to get back the database and
> all of Bacula including the conf files very easily.  The same can be
> done when the Bacula files are sprayed all over your system, bit
> generally, you either need to do a big backup or you need to know
> exactly what files to backup and where they are.  It is easy to forget
> one, especially if you upgrade and we release a new file or you decide
> to modify mtx-changer or something ...
>
> That said, you are free to do it your way :-)


Kern, you hardly qualify as bacula end user. :-)

Packaging vs single directory - it's a matter of perspective.
You are developer and it's quite understandable that you feel more safe
to have it all in one place and use a simple maintenance procedure you
have described.

However for a good system administrator/architect/whatever packaging
system offers additional benefits and a sysadmin will not feel the files
are scattered around because they are all accounted for by the means of
packaging system.

Some of the benefits of packaging (at least for decent packaging systems):
- easy listing of packages and checking whether it's installed or not
- easy checking of package version
- easy checking of package files
- possibility of using dependencies
- immensely easier rebuild procedure (once you are done with an immense
  effort of creating your package :-)  if done properly it should
  succeed on all the systems of the same version without surprises
- integrated file/package verification (useful if there is a suspicion
  of operating system security breach or a file system corruption
- easier upgrades/updates of a system/package (could prevent ending
  up with a broken service by employing dependency checks)
- ability to check which configuration files have been modified in a
  package or on a whole system
- easier documentation of a system as well as its manual replication
- ability to check the description of a package or its changelog

I probably missed few but it should be enough to show why sysadmins
prefer packages. Packaging system makes administration of the system
easier or even possible on the long run.

As all good sysadmins cherish the order on the system they would probably
see files "unaccounted" by the packaging system as a constant source of
discomfort knowing that *there is something out there* that is not going
to be easily checked for updates, listed, migrated, verified or removed by
the package manager. :-)

In case of emergency a good sysadmin is expected to manage its package
manager and packaged files good enough to use it any way imaginable in
order to solve the problem at hand.


--
Josip Deanovic

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Bacula Binaries

Kern Sibbald
In reply to this post by Josh Fisher
Ah, yet another good argument for a single directory installation :-)

Thanks,
Kern

On 11/28/2016 07:25 PM, Josh Fisher wrote:

>
> On 11/28/2016 12:43 PM, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> Hello Josip,
>>
>> Well for end users such as myself, I do consider having Bacula all over
>> your system a problem.  First, if I want to bring up a new version, I
>> simply do:
>>
>> cp -a /opt/bacula /opt/old-bacula
>> save the database
>>
>> then install a new version.  If something goes wrong, it is easy to roll
>> back to the previous version.  In addition, when saving the database
>> dump every evening, I have Bacula backup the database dump plus
>> everything in /opt/bacula with the exclusion of a few directories such
>> as /opt/bacula/working, ...
>
> I would add that the single directory approach is essential when
> running Bacula daemons in a high availability environment where all of
> the Bacula files must be on shared storage available to multiple
> cluster nodes. The cluster config is far simpler when there is only a
> single device and filesystem involved during a failover. When the
> files are scattered across the system, they are usually also scattered
> across multiple filesystems. In order to use Simone's RHEL RPMs, I
> have had to create numerous symlinks and force the files to live on a
> single shared storage device, (a DRBD device in this case). I, for
> one, welcome a RPM with everything in /opt/bacula. That said, Simone's
> work with RHEL RPMs has been greatly appreciated.
>
>
>> In case of an emergency, it is then easy to get back the database and
>> all of Bacula including the conf files very easily.  The same can be
>> done when the Bacula files are sprayed all over your system, bit
>> generally, you either need to do a big backup or you need to know
>> exactly what files to backup and where they are.  It is easy to forget
>> one, especially if you upgrade and we release a new file or you decide
>> to modify mtx-changer or something ...
>>
>> That said, you are free to do it your way :-)
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kern
>>
>> On 11/28/2016 01:10 PM, Josip Deanovic wrote:
>>> On Monday 2016-11-28 11:56:25 Jaime Ferrer Hepp wrote:
>>>> Thanks Josip, I 'll take a look into it. Mainly what might be
>>>> helpful is
>>>> to have bacula-fd binaries for the different linux distributions and
>>>> version. Regarding bacula-dir and bacula-sd I prefer to use Kern's
>>>> suggestion to have all files under /opt/bacula. Today I have it using
>>>> the "RedHat standard" and it is really cumbersome to maintain and
>>>> update.
>>> I don't know. It's all the same for me if all the paths are properly
>>> set.
>>>
>>> If all the libraries, binaries and manuals are at the correct locations
>>> they should already exist in the relevant path environment variable and
>>> you shouldn't experience any problems whether you are using /opt/bacula
>>> or /usr as your prefix during the configure and compile time.
>>>
>>> In case you want to check the content of the bacula rpm package you can
>>> simply issue the command rpm -ql <name of the package> and that's it.
>>>
>>> I understand that the bacula developers have additional things to care
>>> abut because they need to make it easier to support but for the end
>>> users
>>> it shouldn't be a problem or at least I am unable to see it.
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bacula-users mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Bacula Binaries

Kern Sibbald
In reply to this post by Josip Deanovic
On 11/29/2016 06:04 AM, Josip Deanovic wrote:

> On Monday 2016-11-28 18:45:10 Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> On 11/28/2016 01:33 PM, Josip Deanovic wrote:
>>> For the disaster recovery I am starting with the premise that
>>> everything is lost except the volumes in the secondary backup
>>> storage. From those volumes using the bextract tool I am able to get
>>> the bacula server up and running.
>> For me it is easier to use the .bsr file that Bacula emails me each
>> evening to get back the complete Bacula environment.  No need to use
>> bextract.
> I have them copied to the secondary location using admin job every
> morning after all backups are done but I didn't use them because I
> am not fully familiar with the bsr files (although I understand their
> format otherwise I wouldn't be able to use bextract to specify a
> specific job).
>
> I will have to get some time to study bsr files and their usage.
> Shame on me for failing to do so years ago.

No problem, nothing lost and possibly more to gain by studing bsr usage
now.  On my side, I made one mistake above in writing "No need to use
bextract".  Well, in fact I do use bextract to get everything back but
with a .bsr file sent by email, or I do use a Bacula already installed
on another machine to restore using the bsr file.

Best regards,
Kern

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Bacula Binaries

Kern Sibbald
In reply to this post by Josip Deanovic
Well, we are packaging Bacula in rpms and debs, so we get everything you
cite below.  In addition, we get very easy backup and restore in a
disaster situation.

Everyone can do as he wishes, in fact, if you want to take our packages
with their binaries and other files and repackage them to spray them
around your system, it is not what I recommend, but it is perfectly OK.  
Otherwise you can package yourself or use distro packages.  The nice
thing is you have a choice and it is all free.  And finally, there is a
whole lot more of nice new features coming in 2017.

Best regards,
Kern

On 11/29/2016 07:13 AM, Josip Deanovic wrote:

> On Monday 2016-11-28 18:43:14 Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> Hello Josip,
>>
>> Well for end users such as myself, I do consider having Bacula all over
>> your system a problem.  First, if I want to bring up a new version, I
>> simply do:
>>
>> cp -a /opt/bacula /opt/old-bacula
>> save the database
>>
>> then install a new version.  If something goes wrong, it is easy to
>> roll  back to the previous version.  In addition, when saving the
>> database dump every evening, I have Bacula backup the database dump
>> plus everything in /opt/bacula with the exclusion of a few directories
>> such as /opt/bacula/working, ...
>>
>> In case of an emergency, it is then easy to get back the database and
>> all of Bacula including the conf files very easily.  The same can be
>> done when the Bacula files are sprayed all over your system, bit
>> generally, you either need to do a big backup or you need to know
>> exactly what files to backup and where they are.  It is easy to forget
>> one, especially if you upgrade and we release a new file or you decide
>> to modify mtx-changer or something ...
>>
>> That said, you are free to do it your way :-)
>
> Kern, you hardly qualify as bacula end user. :-)
>
> Packaging vs single directory - it's a matter of perspective.
> You are developer and it's quite understandable that you feel more safe
> to have it all in one place and use a simple maintenance procedure you
> have described.
>
> However for a good system administrator/architect/whatever packaging
> system offers additional benefits and a sysadmin will not feel the files
> are scattered around because they are all accounted for by the means of
> packaging system.
>
> Some of the benefits of packaging (at least for decent packaging systems):
> - easy listing of packages and checking whether it's installed or not
> - easy checking of package version
> - easy checking of package files
> - possibility of using dependencies
> - immensely easier rebuild procedure (once you are done with an immense
>    effort of creating your package :-)  if done properly it should
>    succeed on all the systems of the same version without surprises
> - integrated file/package verification (useful if there is a suspicion
>    of operating system security breach or a file system corruption
> - easier upgrades/updates of a system/package (could prevent ending
>    up with a broken service by employing dependency checks)
> - ability to check which configuration files have been modified in a
>    package or on a whole system
> - easier documentation of a system as well as its manual replication
> - ability to check the description of a package or its changelog
>
> I probably missed few but it should be enough to show why sysadmins
> prefer packages. Packaging system makes administration of the system
> easier or even possible on the long run.
>
> As all good sysadmins cherish the order on the system they would probably
> see files "unaccounted" by the packaging system as a constant source of
> discomfort knowing that *there is something out there* that is not going
> to be easily checked for updates, listed, migrated, verified or removed by
> the package manager. :-)
>
> In case of emergency a good sysadmin is expected to manage its package
> manager and packaged files good enough to use it any way imaginable in
> order to solve the problem at hand.
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Bacula Binaries

Josip Deanovic
On Tuesday 2016-11-29 11:50:37 Kern Sibbald wrote:
> Well, we are packaging Bacula in rpms and debs, so we get everything
> you  cite below.  In addition, we get very easy backup and restore in a
> disaster situation.

Yes and I am grateful for the provided packages.
Although in my current company because of the company policies I had
to repackage bacula and maintain the bacula package for us.

--
Josip Deanovic

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Bacula Binaries

Josip Deanovic
In reply to this post by Kern Sibbald
On Tuesday 2016-11-29 11:46:00 Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On 11/29/2016 06:04 AM, Josip Deanovic wrote:
> > I will have to get some time to study bsr files and their usage.
> > Shame on me for failing to do so years ago.
>
> No problem, nothing lost and possibly more to gain by studing bsr usage
> now.  On my side, I made one mistake above in writing "No need to use
> bextract".  Well, in fact I do use bextract to get everything back but
> with a .bsr file sent by email, or I do use a Bacula already installed
> on another machine to restore using the bsr file.

I got some time to look into the bsr files and I have found that bootstrap
files are recreated during the full backup of a job.

I wasn't aware of this and this is exactly what I need. Up until now I
would inspect all the volumes and manually create a bsr file needed for a
disaster recovery restore which is a time consuming task even with a help
of shell oneliners.

It would be a good idea to modify the documentation with a sentence that
states that bootstrap files are recreated during the full backup of a job.
I don't think I have ever stumbled on that info before.

--
Josip Deanovic

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
12
Loading...