[SAC] Space on Backup

[Alex Mandel]

On 02/04/2013 01:35 AM, Martin Spott wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 01:21:48AM -0800, Alex Mandel wrote:
> 
>> It's easy enough to tell Bacula to only use X amount and recycle the
>> oldest volumes after that. We should probably do that in order to avoid
>> disk full which could happen at any point right now. I suggest we come
>> up with a reasonable number and set it for now while we work on figuring
>> out the whole 3rd server idea.
> 
> a) I've already reduced the retention period at least twice during the
>    past months, and, of course, it can be reduced even further.  Yet,
>    there's no more room for a "reasonable" number in the sense of
>    having a backup you can rely on ....  well, the entire idea of doing
>    the backup on the same hardware which runs (at least some of) the
>    machines you back up is, to put it mildly, slightly unreasonable  ;-)
Most of the critical files are actually on the other server. But I agree
it's not ideal. I re-introduced the ideas I had on alleviating this
issue in a previous thread but I've gathered almost no response, so I'm
not sure where to go next.

I'm suggesting we simply put a cap on the number of volumes, regardless
of retention time. I hope we're not keeping more than one copy of most
things (I haven't looked at the rules in a while, so I can't recall).
Really we just need to reduced the influx of data from some of the less
critical applications. I'm not sure how to be more aggressive about
this, other than only backing up designated locations and telling
projects to dump critical data there.


> b) Disk full already happened during the past weekend.
I'm aware, that's why I sent out the email to begin with.
> 
> Cheers,
> 	Martin.
> 

Thanks,
Alex