Bob Hetzel wrote: > 1) Bacula is indeed able to seek within a tape. If you're having trouble > with this functionality you need to look at the storage daemon options at
Thanks Bob, I had misinterpreted something I read earlier. > > 2) If you pick a file that's on one of the other 9 tapes in your example it > should be fine. The big problem will be if you need files on that bad > tape. In that case you won't be able to get it. So here's an example... > Day one, full backup winds up using 9 full tapes and part of a 10th tape. > Day two, that 10th tape is appended to, but then breaks. In this case, > you'll probably be able to restore anything except the files on that last > tape. I believe bacula restores the files in the order they were written, > so any kind of restore you do that invovles tape 9 and tape 10 will get all > the tape 9 stuff just fine but then you'll need to cancel it because you > won't be able to give it tape 10. However, the tape 9 files will already > be written and canceling the restore does not delete them. Continuing the above example, if tape 6 was damaged, I'd be able to recover tapes 7 to 10? Also my original intent in posing the "10 LTO4 tape" example, was whether or not Bacula needed to read all previous tapes in a multi archive set, in order to restore files residing on a given tape. It would appear that this is not the case and it would go directly to the tape the files are stored on. Regards, Richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
