Silver Salonen wrote: > On Thursday 25 June 2009 19:41:10 John Drescher wrote: >>>> There is no such limit. If you want more than one pool to write >>>> concurrently have more than 1 storage device. With disks you can have >>>> as many as you want. They can all point to the same physical storage >>>> location. >>> I meant the configuration limit - that I can't configure one device to > accept >>> multiple jobs concurrently. >>> >> I do this every single day at home. 5 jobs concurrently write to the >> same exact volume. > > My original claim was made in the context of disk-based backups (ie. multiple > pools as I explained in the same message). Using the same exact volume (or > pool) with disk-based backup-system is quite a big limitation to my mind.
Umm, a Volume is not a pool. A pool is a collection of volumes. I suspect you have a different idea of what a "backup system" consists of, as per your GFS post. The technology doesn't define the definition of a backup system. So it doesn't matter whether you use tapes, hard disks, floppies, CDs/DVDs, optical media or whatever. It is how the media is stored and handled that makes it such. The problem is that we are currently enjoying a period of relatively cheap (and nasty) hard disks and there are a lot of people suffering from "RAID Marketing" who now think keeping a copy on another hard disk, or two, somewhere is somehow a backup system. Basically, if you want to a proper backup system, it involves buying adequate media(hard disks) of SIZE** and number. ** I mentione size because my part backups could fit onto a DC1000 (aka 1Gb tape), whereas the full of all clients take 160Gb. So it is ludicrous that the part backups are being dumped to tapes up to 40Gb in size. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
