>>>>> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:31:21 +1300, Craig Miskell said: > > Martin Simmons wrote: > > > What "Max Volume jobs" is set for 000006L4? It seems to think this has been > > exceeded immediately after it was recycled. > Set to 1 for both jobs, so it is exceeded as soon as the volume starts > getting written to. That has always seemed > correct behaviour to me; am I missing something? > > I must say this setting combined with observed behaviour confused me for a > while too (i.e. why was it interleaving with > that set), but I found some comments on the mailing list a few years back on > race conditions and not using "max volume > jobs" to avoid interleaving which made some sense. And I expect I've run > into much the same sort of race condition, > with some extra mildly unfortunate consequences.
Yes it is OK in theory, but race condition bugs might generate this misbehaviour. > Anyway, my original intent was one job per tape, and that's what I'm back to > now. The solution in this case was to set > Maximum Concurrent Jobs = 1 on the Drive configuration, as the most reliable > (to my mind) way to avoid interleaving, > which means each job ends up using the volume it reserved when it started. > That worked properly last night, so I'm > pretty happy now. Hope that helps someone else someday. Right. Setting it on the Drive is also the best way to force it to use both drives simultaneously. __Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
