Graham Keeling wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 08:54:13AM -0500, Phil Stracchino wrote:
>> By setting up the requirements and configuration the way you have, you've
>> painted yourself into a corner in which two jobs running concurrently must
>> both have exclusive access to a volume, and the only way to satisfy that
>> requirement is to have two volumes mounted, which can in turn only be
>> satisfied by using two SDs. (If I were doing it, I'd dedicate a
>> separate pool to each SD, and an SD to each job.)
>
> The more complicated scenario that caused me to start this thread and produce
> the simple test script involved having two different jobs using two different
> pools, sending data to two separate storage daemons.
Then I'm not sure I see the applicability of the simplified
single-daemon test case. I no longer have the early messages in the
thread, unfortunately.
--
Phil Stracchino, CDK#2 DoD#299792458 ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
It's not the years, it's the mileage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Bacula-devel mailing list
Bacula-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
