Hello, we did our test:
- first we used the current version we have running now (2.1.28), just to assure we can reproduce it always (probably). Run 4 concurrent jobs, after restore 2 of them (that are larger) failed as usual with missing files and error messages that some restored files have larger size (that are not log files or changing files). - we installed on a spare server the version 2.2.3, clients didn't changed (2.1.28). Run the same backup jobs. Restored and this time everything was OK. Just one test, but it is promising that finally this issue is gone. I'll watch the discussion and if 2.2.3 is decided as stable we will upgrade the production clients and then we will start as before daily restore tests for at least two weeks, so we will have more proof (if we do :) that the problem is solved. Regards. Monday, September 10, 2007, 5:49:58 AM: DL> On 10 Sep 2007 at 4:55, Doytchin Spiridonov wrote: >> Hello, >> >> >> Monday, September 10, 2007, 4:38:57 AM: >> >> >> >> >> - if the bug is fixed we could start using concurrent jobs now; >> >> DL> I would expect you to test the patch yourself to verify it works for >> DL> you. >> >> Sure. There is an unanswered question that I needed to confirm before >> the tests from my original message that started this discussion: >> >> "is it OK to have dir and sd 2.2.3 and 2.1.28 for >> the clients to successfully test the bug fix" DL> Yes, that will be OK. I'm sure, looking at the patch. >> If yes we will need to setup just one new server for the test and not >> to redo all of the current (server and clients) that seem to be >> working well. >> >> Regards. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
