Hi, On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Paul Binkley wrote:
> I hope someone can help. I have been using Bacula for a couple of months now > running 2.4 on the director and all client daemons, and 3.0 for the storage > daemon (my mistake). This has been working fine. The 3.0 file daemon isn't > compatible with the 2.4 director, so I need to downgrade. > > It seems to be much more trouble to upgrade all the clients and the > director, so downgrading the sd seems to be the best option. Does anyone > have experience with this? What kind of trouble will I be getting into? I'm pretty sure you can just upgrade the director and leave all of the clients running 2.4. This would avoid having to do a downgrade, give you the extra features of 3.0 on the director in case you might need them somewhere and you can just upgrade those clients you want/need to. There are several compelling reasons to use v3. One is if you come across a windows server running volume shadow copy, you'll need a 64-bit file daemon to run on it or VSS will crash. The only 64-bit builds of Bacula are v3 and require a v3 director. There are also features like VirtualFull backups which are nice. Gavin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
