Re: why do the comments in bacula-dir.conf say not to use "localhost" here?

On 2025-09-02 07:22, Dan Langille wrote:
> 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.


Well, the particular situation is I can back up my file server fine 
using 127.0.0.1. However, if I change the address to the local IP 
address of the server (or the FQDN), it fails to connect to the storage 
daemon. So, yes, this part is working.

I also want to backup my workstation. No matter what address I used in 
bacular-dir.conf, I get a connection refused message when I check the 
status in bconsole.