Re: why do the comments in bacula-dir.conf say not to use "localhost" here?
"Dan Langille" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.bacula.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, Sep 1, 2025, at 4:06 PM, Gary Dale wrote: > Can someone please revise the comments to be more reflective of a > typical situation? Let's say a place uses 127.0.0.1 (or localhost). It's up. It's running. An FD (client / bacula-fd) is added. Backups work well. Everything is great. That's it. You're not adding any more clients. Practically speaking, you're done. If you want to add another client, presumably, on another host, it'll be at, let's say 10.0.0.1 You configure the job. You run it. bacula-dir contacts bacula-fd (at 10.0.0.1) and says: Backup this FileSet to this bacula-sd (127.0.0.1). Oh. That isn't going to happen. Other considerations. Using certificates is much easier with hostnames than IP addresses. I also suspect many examples, now lost to history, arose before those comments were added in. If your situation is working only with 127.0.0.1 and you'd like to change that, please ask away. -- Dan Langille [email protected]