James Harper wrote:
>> Another update: I found out that the database is in fact in a "Dirty
>> Shutdown" state (eseutil.exe told me that) - hence it won't work
>>
> (mount).
>
>> I found a discussion about this here:
>>
>>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.ne
On Friday 26 June 2009 02:07:58 terryc wrote:
> Silver Salonen wrote:
> > Eg. if we want to do ordinary Grandfather-Father-Son rotation, we
> > create 3 different pools for every job - for full, differential and
> > incremental backups.
>
> That is not how I understand GFS system, although it i
On Thursday 25 June 2009 19:41:10 John Drescher wrote:
> >> There is no such limit. If you want more than one pool to write
> >> concurrently have more than 1 storage device. With disks you can have
> >> as many as you want. They can all point to the same physical storage
> >> location.
> >
> > I m
Attila Fülöp wrote:
> Andreas Schuldei wrote:
>> hi!
>>
>> reading the documentation i understand that you should have several
>> volumes for concurrent backups, on different devices/directories. (i
>> work on disk for now.)
>>
>> However some people here on the list seem to be doing well with
>> c
>
> Another update: I found out that the database is in fact in a "Dirty
> Shutdown" state (eseutil.exe told me that) - hence it won't work
(mount).
>
> I found a discussion about this here:
>
http://www.mail-archive.com/bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net/msg30912.
html
>
> But it seems like the
I've set-up a migration job to migrate jobs from one set of tape volumes to
disk volumes. I've configured the destination pool to use the volume once
and have a retention period of 2 months. For some reason when the migration
job completes and gets to the next queued migration job it marks the
dest
Silver Salonen wrote:
> Eg. if we want to do ordinary Grandfather-Father-Son rotation, we
> create 3 different pools for every job - for full, differential and
> incremental backups.
That is not how I understand GFS system, although it is a possibility. I
understand it as Full, plus (increment
Another update: I found out that the database is in fact in a "Dirty
Shutdown" state (eseutil.exe told me that) - hence it won't work (mount).
I found a discussion about this here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net/msg30912.html
But it seems like there was no solutio
> I'm trying to determine if there's a way to define space quotas on a per
> host basis in Bacula. I figured there might be a way to do it by
> limiting the size of volumes, number of volumes within a pool, and
> assigning each host it's own pool.
That sounds fine. I would do exactly that if I had
Hello,
I'm trying to determine if there's a way to define space quotas on a per
host basis in Bacula. I figured there might be a way to do it by
limiting the size of volumes, number of volumes within a pool, and
assigning each host it's own pool. I read in an old thread that this
goes against
On 25.06.2009 14:10, Silver Salonen wrote:
> On Thursday 25 June 2009 13:42:30 Andreas Schuldei wrote:
>> hi!
>>
>> reading the documentation i understand that you should have several
>> volumes for concurrent backups, on different devices/directories. (i
>> work on disk for now.)
>>
>> However s
Thanks for the suggestions Dirk. I was afraid that it would come down to
scripting; being a temp Student admin I'm trying to keep things as
straightforward as possible for the next person who has to deal with it.
I was hoping I had missed something and that the Job resource could also set
the
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:59:26 -0700, mehma sarja said:
>
> Thanks for all your help you guys. I am impressed with the level of
> expertise here!
>
> > Error accessing memory address 0x7fbff000: Bad address.
> > > #0 0x0040c043 in add_findex ()
> >
> > The function add_findex is
Update: I think I found a restore setup that actually restores the
backup. The backup gets cut short when the DB is activated in Exchange
and this also crashes the Bacula FD on the target machine.
The end is "Error: HrESERestoreComplete failed
with error 0xc7ff1004 - Unknown error." at which point
>> There is no such limit. If you want more than one pool to write
>> concurrently have more than 1 storage device. With disks you can have
>> as many as you want. They can all point to the same physical storage
>> location.
>
> I meant the configuration limit - that I can't configure one device to
Silver Salonen schrieb:
> On Thursday 25 June 2009 18:28:28 Christian Gaul wrote:
>
>> Silver Salonen schrieb:
>>
>>> PS. The limit to be able to write only one job to one disk-based device
>>>
> has
>
>>> been a bizzare limit that just complicates the configuration, I still
>>
On Thursday 25 June 2009 18:28:28 Christian Gaul wrote:
> Silver Salonen schrieb:
> > PS. The limit to be able to write only one job to one disk-based device
has
> > been a bizzare limit that just complicates the configuration, I still
don't
> > understand why we have this limit in disk-based b
On Friday 05 June 2009 16:36:16 Silver Salonen wrote:
> On Thursday 04 June 2009 10:53:03 Christian Gaul wrote:
> > Silver Salonen schrieb:
> > > On Thursday 04 June 2009 10:34:36 Christian Gaul wrote:
> > >
> > >> Silver Salonen schrieb:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm trying to run
I am trying to restore a full backup I made from our Exchange 2003
server. I read the docs and a long conversation from Graham Keeling
which seemed to end in a bug report that is closed.
I am trying to restore the backup into a fresh Exchange server which has
a Recovery Storage Group. I read so
Silver Salonen schrieb:
> PS. The limit to be able to write only one job to one disk-based device has
> been a bizzare limit that just complicates the configuration, I still don't
> understand why we have this limit in disk-based backups (the claim "Bacula
> uses disks as tapes" is just as bizza
On Thursday 25 June 2009 18:10:35 John Drescher wrote:
> > PS. The limit to be able to write only one job to one disk-based device
has
> > been a bizzare limit that just complicates the configuration, I still
don't
> > understand why we have this limit in disk-based backups (the claim "Bacula
> >
> PS. The limit to be able to write only one job to one disk-based device has
> been a bizzare limit that just complicates the configuration, I still don't
> understand why we have this limit in disk-based backups (the claim "Bacula
> uses disks as tapes" is just as bizzare).
>
There is no such lim
On Thursday 25 June 2009 17:24:37 John Drescher wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:23 AM, John Drescher wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:34 AM, terryc wrote:
> >> Silver Salonen wrote:
> >>
> >>> As one device supports only one job, you have to create separate devices
for
> >>> each job you w
Reynier Pérez Mira wrote on 25.06.2009 16:41:52:
> Reynier Pérez Mira
> 25.06.2009 16:41
>
> Bitte antworten an
> rper...@uci.cu
>
> An
>
> c.kesch...@internet-mit-iq.de
>
> Kopie
>
> bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>
> Thema
>
> Re: Antwort: [Bacula-users] Fatal error: Job canceled b
Reynier Pérez Mira wrote on 25.06.2009 16:41:52:
> Reynier Pérez Mira
> 25.06.2009 16:41
>
> Bitte antworten an
> rper...@uci.cu
>
> An
>
> c.kesch...@internet-mit-iq.de
>
> Kopie
>
> bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>
> Thema
>
> Re: Antwort: [Bacula-users] Fatal error: Job canceled b
c.kesch...@internet-mit-iq.de wrote:
> See "Max Start Delay" in the Job Resource. I guess one of your other
> Jobs took too long or hang.
> From the documentation:
> *Max Start Delay = *
> The time specifies the maximum delay between the scheduled time and the
> actual start time for the Job. Fo
Reynier Pérez Mira wrote on 25.06.2009 15:51:46:
> Reynier Pérez Mira
> 25.06.2009 15:51
>
> Bitte antworten an
> rper...@uci.cu
>
> An
>
> bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>
> Kopie
>
> Thema
>
> [Bacula-users] Fatal error: Job canceled because max start delay time
exceeded
>
> Hi ev
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:34 AM, terryc wrote:
> Silver Salonen wrote:
>
>> As one device supports only one job, you have to create separate devices for
>> each job you want to be able to run concurrently.
>
> That isn't how I understand it. I am working on having multiple clients
> feeding files i
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:23 AM, John Drescher wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:34 AM, terryc wrote:
>> Silver Salonen wrote:
>>
>>> As one device supports only one job, you have to create separate devices for
>>> each job you want to be able to run concurrently.
>>
>> That isn't how I understan
Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> hi!
>
> reading the documentation i understand that you should have several
> volumes for concurrent backups, on different devices/directories. (i
> work on disk for now.)
>
> However some people here on the list seem to be doing well with
> concurrent backups to only on
Hi every:
Today in the morning I check my email and Bacula sending to me 139
emails with this error: Fatal error: Job canceled because max start
delay time exceeded.
What this means? How I can fix this?
Regards,
--
Ing. Reynier Pérez Mira
---
Silver Salonen wrote:
> As one device supports only one job, you have to create separate devices for
> each job you want to be able to run concurrently.
That isn't how I understand it. I am working on having multiple clients
feeding files into a single tape drive at the same time and expect tha
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:42:30PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> hi!
>
> reading the documentation i understand that you should have several
> volumes for concurrent backups, on different devices/directories. (i
> work on disk for now.)
>
> However some people here on the list seem to be doing
Cesare Montresor wrote:
> Hi guys, does anyone know how to resolve this issue ?
>
> Considerations:
> - Started and restared, all components many times :)
> - Add hearthbeat interval = 1 to SF and SD
> - Test connection using telnet, works...
> - Unix permissions at SD are ok.
> - This job dies al
Hi Cesare,
I ran accros this issue in 2005, with very similar results.
At that stage I was working with Nvida Onboard NICs on the Windows FD.
Problem turned out to be driver related.
If you are not running Nvidia hardware, investigate and update the
driver.
Kind Regards
Stephan
-Original Me
On Thursday 25 June 2009 13:42:30 Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> hi!
>
> reading the documentation i understand that you should have several
> volumes for concurrent backups, on different devices/directories. (i
> work on disk for now.)
>
> However some people here on the list seem to be doing well wi
Hi guys, does anyone know how to resolve this issue ?
Considerations:
- Started and restared, all components many times :)
- Add hearthbeat interval = 1 to SF and SD
- Test connection using telnet, works...
- Unix permissions at SD are ok.
- This job dies always near this point:
~9min (8.57, 9
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Forgive me for the O/T post, but I know several people here are using
Quantum Superloaders and have wondered how the mailslot could be used,
given that it cannot be addressed via mtx. I found this on the web:
http://www.symantec.com/connect/fo
hi!
reading the documentation i understand that you should have several
volumes for concurrent backups, on different devices/directories. (i
work on disk for now.)
However some people here on the list seem to be doing well with
concurrent backups to only one volume. is that actually true or am i
39 matches
Mail list logo
