In the message dated: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:30:44 PST,
The pithy ruminations from Steve Ellis on
were:
=> On 1/24/12 2:22 PM, mark.berg...@uphs.upenn.edu wrote:
=> > In the message dated: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:09:15 GMT,
=> > The pithy ruminations from Martin Simmons on
=> >
=> >
=> > Thanks for repl
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:17 PM John Drescher wrote:
> Bad tape? Drive need cleaned?
I completed btape fill and unfill without errors.
I cleaned the drive and will see whether that resolves the issue.
Any other ideas?
Nikola Lazic
--
On 1/24/12 2:22 PM, mark.berg...@uphs.upenn.edu wrote:
> In the message dated: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:09:15 GMT,
> The pithy ruminations from Martin Simmons on
>
>
> Thanks for replying.
>
>
> backu
> ps unreadable> were:
> => > On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:47:31 -0500, mark bergman said:
> => >
>
In the message dated: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:09:15 GMT,
The pithy ruminations from Martin Simmons on
Thanks for replying.
were:
=> > On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:47:31 -0500, mark bergman said:
=> >
=> > I'm experiencing a critical problem where tape labels on volumes with data
=> > get corrupted
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:47:31 -0500, mark bergman said:
>
> I'm experiencing a critical problem where tape labels on volumes with data
> get corrupted, leaving all data on the tape inaccessible to bacula.
>
> I'm running bacula 5.2.2 built from source, under Linux (CentOS 5.7
> x86_64).
>
>
> > I have a director still at 5.0.3, and a few new clients coming up.
> > Should I use the current version (5.2.4) on these FDs, or should I
> > keep them on 5.0.3 until the director has been upgraded?
> >
> > Vennlige hilsener / Best regards
> >
>
> It's always recommended that the director vers
On 24/01/12 17:08, John Drescher wrote:
> I believe it meant that with bacula prior to 5.2.X you had to compile
> in your db choice (sqlite, postgresql,mysql) and could not change that
> choice at runtime. Now with 5.2 You can mix and match and have more
> than 1 catalog.
1: You can only define o
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Marcello Romani
wrote:
> Il 24/01/2012 17:43, Xabier Elkano ha scritto:
>> El 24/01/12 17:02, Marcello Romani escribió:
>>> Il 24/01/2012 12:21, Xabier Elkano ha scritto:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
> I'm just thinking out loud, but I don't see how having a catalog for
Il 24/01/2012 17:43, Xabier Elkano ha scritto:
> El 24/01/12 17:02, Marcello Romani escribió:
>> Il 24/01/2012 12:21, Xabier Elkano ha scritto:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
I'm just thinking out loud, but I don't see how having a catalog for
each client can help you scale, since you can't put them on
El 24/01/12 17:02, Marcello Romani escribió:
> Il 24/01/2012 12:21, Xabier Elkano ha scritto:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> I'm just thinking out loud, but I don't see how having a catalog for
>>> each client can help you scale, since you can't put them on different db
>>> servers. You'd probably have a higher
Il 24/01/2012 12:21, Xabier Elkano ha scritto:
[snip]
>> I'm just thinking out loud, but I don't see how having a catalog for
>> each client can help you scale, since you can't put them on different db
>> servers. You'd probably have a higher ROI by upgrading the DBMS hardware
>> and/or migrating
Hi folks,
thanks to your hints and ideas the restore times have been reduced
from 3-4 hours to about five minutes (building the directory tree,
that is).
Lesson learnt: Before complaining loudly to the list, make sure your
db is in good health by administering a generous dosage of "repair
table"
Thanks for the reply, John. I'll give it a go. The spooling will be on
RAID 10, so I won't get the performance of RAID 0, but we will see how
it goes.
Cheers,
Bryan
On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 17:59 -0500, John Drescher wrote:
> > But will this speed up my backups? Generally speaking, should Bacula
On 01/24/2012 06:21 AM, Xabier Elkano wrote:
> El 24/01/12 11:47, Marcello Romani escribió:
>> I'm just thinking out loud, but I don't see how having a catalog for
>> each client can help you scale, since you can't put them on different db
>> servers. You'd probably have a higher ROI by upgrading t
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I have a director still at 5.0.3, and a few new clients coming up. Should I
> use the current version (5.2.4) on these FDs, or should I keep them on 5.0.3
> until the director has been upgraded?
>
> Vennlige hilsener / Be
Excerpts from Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk's message of Tue Jan 24 04:40:45 -0500 2012:
Hi Roy,
> I have a director still at 5.0.3, and a few new clients coming
> up. Should I use the current version (5.2.4) on these FDs, or should
> I keep them on 5.0.3 until the director has been upgraded?
I asked thi
Hi Folks,
I need to know how much disk space my full backups are in use for the
last backup run.
Thanks in advance,
--
Isamar Maia
Cel. VIVO SSA: (55) 71-9146-8575
Cel. TIM SSA: (55) 71-9185-5264
Fixo: (55) 71-4062-8688
日本: +81-(0)3-4550-1212
Skype ID: isamar.maia
El 24/01/12 11:47, Marcello Romani escribió:
> Il 24/01/2012 11:18, Xabier Elkano ha scritto:
>> El 24/01/12 10:49, Marcello Romani escribió:
>>> Il 24/01/2012 10:05, Xabier Elkano ha scritto:
El 23/01/12 16:28, Uwe Schuerkamp escribió:
> DB Size:
> Total clients:107 Total byt
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:47:51 +0100
Marcello Romani wrote:
[...]
> >> You mean 31 catalogs ?!
> > Yes, now, I am only testing with two catalogs and it's working Ok,
> > what are the downsides using this config?
> > According to the documentation bacula supports it:
> >
> > " The Catalog Resource
Il 24/01/2012 11:18, Xabier Elkano ha scritto:
> El 24/01/12 10:49, Marcello Romani escribió:
>> Il 24/01/2012 10:05, Xabier Elkano ha scritto:
>>> El 23/01/12 16:28, Uwe Schuerkamp escribió:
DB Size:
Total clients: 107 Total bytes stored: 34.41 TB
Total files: 474
El 24/01/12 10:49, Marcello Romani escribió:
> Il 24/01/2012 10:05, Xabier Elkano ha scritto:
>> El 23/01/12 16:28, Uwe Schuerkamp escribió:
>>> DB Size:
>>> Total clients: 107 Total bytes stored: 34.41 TB
>>> Total files:47495362 Database size:31.64 GB
>> Hi Uwe,
>>
Il 24/01/2012 10:05, Xabier Elkano ha scritto:
> El 23/01/12 16:28, Uwe Schuerkamp escribió:
>> DB Size:
>> Total clients: 107 Total bytes stored: 34.41 TB
>> Total files: 47495362 Database size:31.64 GB
> Hi Uwe,
>
> I am having the same problem, backups are fast, but rest
Hi all
I have a director still at 5.0.3, and a few new clients coming up. Should I use
the current version (5.2.4) on these FDs, or should I keep them on 5.0.3 until
the director has been upgraded?
Vennlige hilsener / Best regards
roy
--
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
(+47) 97542685
r...@karlsbakk.net
h
El 23/01/12 16:28, Uwe Schuerkamp escribió:
> DB Size:
> Total clients:107 Total bytes stored: 34.41 TB
> Total files: 47495362 Database size:31.64 GB
Hi Uwe,
I am having the same problem, backups are fast, but restores takes too
long creating directory tree with bat. I
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:13:30AM -0500, Phil Stracchino wrote:
>
> If max_heap_table_size is 16M, then in-memory temporary tables are
> limited to 16M too. Maximum in-memory temporary table size is the
> smaller of tmp_table-size and max_heap_table_size. You only ever have a
> single DB connec
25 matches
Mail list logo