With ‘ALL OTHER data than the sources’ i meant, e.g., the user-submitted GitLab issues/cases/bugs, the user settings/permissions, and so on…
Can i save only the postgres DB, and that’s it, or do i need to save more data. (=files on the file system)
Our company has a GitLab (CE) server, which pushes on github.com to some private repositories. That GitLab server is a VirtualBox VM on Windows 10. (For the GUI we use “phpvirtualbox”, because VirtualBox acts, in our case, in a headless server mode as a windows service before user login occurs)
Now, that server doesn’t have important things - neither a RAID system, not a backup process. (Yes, i know, that are 2 different kind of things! ;-))
But we have another virtualization host with Windows Server 2016 and HyperV. (But Ubuntu made stress at the end of installation - i forgot the message, maybe HyperV is not compatible to Ubuntu 18.0.x LTS so it seems?)
Now i have the idea to set up a postgres DBMS on an existing HyperV-Machine (they have RAID, replication while running, backup, UPS etc.) and connect the VirtualBox GitLab VM, that runs on a non-safe VirtualBox machine, with a safe Hyper-V VM which runs postgres.
- In general: Good or bad idea?
- And, more important: Do i need to backup more data (as already said e.g. files on file system) than the GitLab Postgres DB and its tables?
Thank you for your feedbacks.
GitLab has CLI commands to create a full backup (except for some credentials), better use this than a single database dump.
For production use cases, I would advise against VirtualBox on a Windows host. Instead, let a Linux VM run on an hypervisor and let the Omnibus packages etc. being installed over there. Then you can also look into backup automation, and taking snapshots.
Thank you very much for your feedback!!
“For production use cases, I would advise against VirtualBox on a Windows host.”
I would say (maybe i’m wrong?)
“For production use cases, I would advise against VirtualBox” (in general!)
But: In my opinion, and also due to my experiences, VirtualBox makes less problems on Windows than on Linux (whatever which distribution)
I think the combination of Windows and VirtualBox is one of the mostly used world-wide (millions of users) but it’s more a desktop than a server OS virtualization - that’s a fact so i think.
I was only referring to your current setup. VirtualBox works fine for me on Windows, Linux, macOS. Still, I only use it for development and demo environments not run 24x7. Given that Windows provides its own virtualization solution called Hyper-V, that’s imho a better choice.
Yes, you are right in general, full acknowledge!
Thank you very much!