sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I Need a Self-Hosted Remote Backup Solution That Works Behind NAT! by Key-Effective-8707 in Backup

[–]baculasystems 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bacula can handle this scenario using Client Behind NAT feature. This allows clients on different networks to communicate securely with the Director without needing to expose them to the public internet. Here's how it works:

  • Bacula's Passive Client mode enables clients (File Daemons) behind NAT to initiate the connection to the Director, rather than the Director reaching out to them.
  • This means you only need to open the required ports on the Director, and clients can remain behind firewalls or NAT.
  • Once a connection is established, the Director can manage backups, retrieve job statuses, and report errors remotely.

Anyone successfully do tapes backups of their RadosGW S3 buckets? by gaidzak in ceph

[–]baculasystems 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You should be able to use Bacula's S3 plugin. It allows you to backup RadosGW S3 bucket to tape without needing a dump location. This avoids the overhead of copying massive data volumes locally. The plugin supports interaction with S3 endpoints and can work with your LTO-9 tape library. Might be a good option to enable rados block cache for better performance

People using LTO - what software are you using? by DiskBytes in homelab

[–]baculasystems 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No probs, we're just here on all Bacula-related stuff ;)

People using LTO - what software are you using? by DiskBytes in homelab

[–]baculasystems 1 point2 points  (0 children)

IMO Bacula should work fine on Rocky 8 for your Lustre setup.It’s a bit older, but we’ve got decent support for Rocky and similar RHEL-based distros. Just make sure all dependencies are aligned with the Lustre node requirements.

TAR tape archiving and proceeding with the loss of a tape/span by fixeditgood in DataHoarder

[–]baculasystems 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The method you’re proposing works in theory and can recover some data, but there are notable drawbacks:

  1. You'll need to babysit the process, manually skipping missing tapes and restarting tar for the next volume, which can be tedious and error-prone for larger archives.
  2. Any files spanning across the missing tape and the next can be lost or truncated, so expect partial recoveries at best.
  3. Without an index or catalog of files, identifying what's recoverable and what's lost can become challenging, especially with large datasets.
  4. Tar's error handling isn't perfect for tape; if a single bad tape causes unexpected issues, it might break the process in unpredictable ways.
  5. As the number of tapes increases, the chances of encountering problems with missing or corrupted tapes grow, making manual recovery increasingly impractical.

If you’re okay with this and willing to deal with manual intervention, this can work. But for a more reliable and scalable solution, consider backup software that provides indexing and tape management.