On Tuesday 12 May 2009 15:10:47 Phil Stracchino wrote:
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > I don't see any reason to change the current behavior. It may be a bit
> > difficult to get used to it, but the different Max Concurrent Jobs all
> > have different actions, and none are ignored.
> >
> > My recommenda
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> I don't see any reason to change the current behavior. It may be a bit
> difficult to get used to it, but the different Max Concurrent Jobs all have
> different actions, and none are ignored.
>
> My recommendation is to carefully read the manual, then if you have
> questi
John Drescher wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
>> I've just spent two hours going nuts trying to get concurrent jobs
>> running on my new 3.0.1 install on my new server, because of an
>> oversight in the config file syntax and syntax checking.
>>
>>
>> Here's the pr
I don't see any reason to change the current behavior. It may be a bit
difficult to get used to it, but the different Max Councurrent Jobs all have
different actions, and none are ignored.
My recommendation is to carefully read the manual, then if you have questions,
please ask on the bacula-u
I've just spent two hours going nuts trying to get concurrent jobs
running on my new 3.0.1 install on my new server, because of an
oversight in the config file syntax and syntax checking.
Here's the problem:
The "Max Concurrent Jobs" directive is *legal* in the Storage resource
in bacula-dir.con
