Re: [Bacula-users] 3.0 upgrade success

[Thomas M. <th...@ch...>]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:10:27 +0200, Simon Ekstrand wrote:

> 2009/4/23 Ulrich Leodolter <ulr...@ob...>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 09:54 +0200, Simon Ekstrand wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I thought I'd just put in a note that we have just done a successful
>>> upgrade to bacula 3.0 for a bacula system running 7 storage daemons
>>> with a total of ~70 TB data (all disk based, no tapes). Everything is
>>> running smoothly so far.
>>> The catalog in use is a mysql db totaling approximatly 110 GB. We did
>>
>> Our catalog is about 18G,  nice to hear that it works > 100GB. Are u
>> running catalog backups?  how long runs mysqldump bacula? Would be nice
>> if you can share your hardware config (machines, cpu, mem, disk)
> 
> The catalog server currently runs dual quad core 3ghz intel xeons, 8gb
> ram, 15krmp sas disks etc.
> We don't currently do any mysqldumps of the catalog db due to the
> horrible amounts of time required for a mysqldump of a db of this size.
> As a half-measure we instead do replication of the db to a second server
> so that we have a copy of the data in case of a hardware crash.
> 


i think the only way to do a backup of large mysql databases without a 
real downtime and acceptable restore times is to do "FLUSH TABLES WITH 
READ LOCK" and make a lvm snapshot and backup the "snapshotted" mysql 
data dir.

i've done a once restore of a 2 GB mysqldump database (monitoring data) . 
it took about 1 hour (ok it wasn't a high perfomance machine). 

- Thomas