On 07/11/2011 11:52 AM, Josh Fisher wrote: > Did any of the jobs that ran just after those two write to the same > volume? What was the status (from 'status dir' command) of the jobs that > were not running when only two jobs were running?
Sorry, I probably should have cut and pasted that information. All the jobs have finished, but I believe they all said something like "waiting on storage device", if it happens again, I will make sure to save the scheduler output and send it. I don't believe any of the jobs wrote to the same volume. > My understanding is that if AllowMixedPriority=yes, then the higher > priority job should run before any other queued lower priority jobs. > Although it will not preempt already running jobs, it should start as > soon as one of the already running jobs finishes. If, when one of the > already running jobs finishes, it runs a lower priority job ahead of the > queued high priority job, then that sounds like a bug in the Bacula > scheduler. It shouldn't run a queued lower priority job ahead of a > queued high priority job if AllowMixedPriority=yes. At least, that is my > understanding. Hmm, You say "AllowMixedPriority=yes", the docs and my conf files say "Allow Mixed Priority = yes". Do the white spaces matter? Maybe I should try it the way you have it here. I also have this specified for every job I have, I wasn't sure if I could put it in the JobsDef or not. If the way I have it spelled in my conf files is fine, then it sounds like it could be a bug. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users