i had the same issue one year ago when i tried the "virtual full" feature.
.
i also posted the problem on the devel list but nobody seems interested in
fixing this bug.
i switched to rsync disk based backups
maybe you'll find a suitable solution .
Dil
"Mark Bergman" a écrit dans le messa
On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 04:08:28PM +0200, Marcus Krackowizer wrote:
[...]
> I am getting the following error message when trying to run a backup job. It
> seems that Bacula is trying to log into MySQL as a root user but I don't
> believe I've specified this anywhere. Is anyone aware what I've done
On Sat, 2011-09-03 at 07:42 -0400, John Drescher wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Craig White wrote:
> > Have been tinkering with spooling... 1 server (perhaps 1.6 TB of backup
> > data) and 20 clients (varying from 30 - 400 GB per client).
> >
> > It is sort of difficult to test since I d
Dear All
The System
- CentOS 6 minimal install + Arno firewall IP tables on a VMWare virtual
server.
- Bacula 5.0.0
- Webmin console
I am getting the following error message when trying to run a backup job. It
seems that Bacula is trying to log into MySQL as a root user but I don't
believe I've
Dear All
The System
- CentOS 6 minimal install + Arno firewall IP tables on a VMWare virtual
server.
- Bacula 5.0.0
- Webmin console
I am getting the following error message when trying to run a backup job. It
seems that Bacula is trying to log into MySQL as a root user but I don't
believe I've
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Craig White wrote:
> Have been tinkering with spooling... 1 server (perhaps 1.6 TB of backup
> data) and 20 clients (varying from 30 - 400 GB per client).
>
> It is sort of difficult to test since I don't really know what is going
> to happen with a FULL backup of m
Have been tinkering with spooling... 1 server (perhaps 1.6 TB of backup
data) and 20 clients (varying from 30 - 400 GB per client).
It is sort of difficult to test since I don't really know what is going
to happen with a FULL backup of many TB of data until it actually runs
and it's not the sort o
> 2: Nor should "Maximum Block Size" - this is imposing significant
> overheads all by itself and is intended for old-school tape drives using
> fixed block sizes.
I think your're talking about "Minimum Block Size" here.
"Maximum Block Size", on the other hand, does not impose any space
overhe