Re: [Bacula-users] [BULK] Re: [BULK] Re: 3.0 upgrade success

[Attila F. <lic...@ge...>]

Simon Ekstrand wrote:
> 2009/4/23 Attila Fülöp <lic...@ge...>:
>> Ever thought of using multiple catalogs, eg one catalog for each
>> client or client group? This should mitigate most of the catalog issues
>> you have.
> 
> Yes, we've thought about it. That has it's own set of problem though.
> One is obviously the trouble of keeping multiple catalog db's around
> and assigning clients to them, this isn't a big problem but it does
> add complexity.
> The other is the extra bconsole overhead of having to know what
> catalog a client is in to perform certain operations. 'query' is a
> prime example, or restore, a catalog must be selected before any
> query/restore commands can be performed. This means you need to check
> what catalog a client is assigned to for every bconsole command that
> requires use of the catalog, which feels like it would get old fairly
> quickly.

Well, currently we are using a single catalog too. But since the
db size reached 32GB we were thinking of using multiple catalogs.
By now the db size has reached 44GB (PostgreSQL) and is still
manageable but certain operations do take a long time.

Regarding the bconsole complexity, we thought about a catalog for
each client. With a consistent naming scheme like <client>-fd and
<client>-cat it should be obvious which catalog to use. We have
relatively few clients but long retention times. YMMV though.

> If anyone has any suggestions for using multiple catalogs in as
> transparent a manner as possible I'd be very happy to hear them.

We would be interessted too.

Attila