Hello, 2015-08-31 14:27 GMT+02:00 ebourgui <e.bourgui...@allibert-trekking.com>:
> I know that no informations are stored in database with bcopy. That's what > I > want (to prevent database size growing too much). Are you absolutely sure it is worth a such complications? A single backup file takes about 400B of database storage (including indexes). You can buy a 3TB HDD for about 100USD. A one million files in bacula catalog will cost about 1,21 cent in storage space. Compare it to your earnings. :) > These informations are > already stored in database for tape 1 (which is the original tape). If you want to use a "cloned" tape2 with Bacula then you need to bscan it to the catalog. > Using > bcopy to copy tape 1 to tape 2 (keeping volume name) would permit to have > exactly same database informations for tape 1 & 2 (and permit off-site > storage for tape 2). > No. The bcopy is not making a byte by byte copy of the original tape (the Unix/Linux utility dd makes this). In my opinion it is not guaranteed that the tapes will be the same. To use a "cloned" tape you should bscan it ti the catalog. > I used this functionality with 5.0.12 version and it worked. > You lucky man. :) > > For information I can not use bextract because datas are encrypted with > bacula. > Yes, it is true. > > *bconsole content* > > * > /usr/local/bacula/var/bacula/working/bacula-dir.restore.132.bsr* > > > *Files to restore* > > The catalog has a lot of metadata information about the backup and volume, i.e. a job table, file table, media table and the most important jobmedia table where Bacula stores volume "physical" mappings of the backup. A cloned tape could have a different jobmedia mappings then an original one. best regards -- Radosław Korzeniewski rados...@korzeniewski.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
