Kern Sibbald schrieb: > When Bacula is scanning, listing, or restoring (depending on the exact > options) from a volume, it will read to the end of the volume, so with your > scheme, such operations will fail.
I don't mind if these operations would fail just during the moment when bacula is about to recycle a volume since the old data is invalidated in right that moment anyway. > Because when a file is overwritten and not truncated, it ends at the original > size of the file, when a tape is overwritten, it ends at the end of the new > data. Am I missing any arguments here? When I write 20MB on a 4GB tape, the size of the tape will remain 4GB. When I write 20MB on a 10MB file, the size of the file will become 20MB. > No, good systems such as Linux do not fragment the disk nor do programs such > as Bacula fragment the disk. The disk becomes fragmented only if there are > multiple processes writing the disk at the same time, or some files are > deleted. The administrator (I used the word user in the last email) can > control this behavior if it is important. Yes, this is a point. To let programs avoid backdraws instead of leaving this to administrators is another. Well, the world out there will not miss very much, wether bacula truncates anything or not. But what I am really fed up with are arrogant open source developers who think their users were too stupid. /hm ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
