Hello Admis,
We have a working Bacula ( Release 2.2.7) setup.
So far all the backup tapes are retained inside the tape library. But now we
have decided to keep 1 set offsite.
We have created a separate pool of tapes ( say 10 tapes) and taken few
important backups last week. Now couple of tapes a
> Thanks for the suggestions!
>
> We have a couple more questions that I hope have easy answers. So, it's
> been strongly suggested by several folks now that we back up our 200TB of
> data in smaller chunks. This is our structure:
>
> We have our 200TB in one directory. From there we have abou
On 3/8/12 3:34 PM, Gary Stainburn wrote:
> On Thursday 08 March 2012 20:35:10 Andrea Conti wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>> I've added exclude entries for most of the folders
>>> I don't want to back up but they're still being included,
>> Which folders are still being included? All of them or just some?
>>
On Thursday 08 March 2012 20:35:10 Andrea Conti wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > I've added exclude entries for most of the folders
> > I don't want to back up but they're still being included,
>
> Which folders are still being included? All of them or just some?
>
> A lot of the "default" folders under windo
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 09:38:33AM -0800, Erich Weiler wrote:
> We have our 200TB in one directory. From there we have about 10,000
> subdirectories that each have two files in it, ranging in size between
> 50GB and 300GB (an estimate). All of those 10,000 directories adds to
> up about 200TB.
Am 06.03.2012 16:07, schrieb Christian Manal:
> according to the bsmtp(1) manpage, it supports UTF-8. You just need to
> add the -8 option to your mailcommand(s) in bacula-dir.conf.
Thanks, that did the trick.
T.
--
Virt
Hello,
> I've added exclude entries for most of the folders
> I don't want to back up but they're still being included,
Which folders are still being included? All of them or just some?
A lot of the "default" folders under windows 7 (for example 'Application
Data' and 'Local Settings' in every
On 3/8/12 9:38 AM, Erich Weiler wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions!
>
> We have a couple more questions that I hope have easy answers. So, it's
> been strongly suggested by several folks now that we back up our 200TB
> of data in smaller chunks. This is our structure:
>
> We have our 200TB in on
In the message dated: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:38:33 PST,
The pithy ruminations from Erich Weiler on
were:
=> Thanks for the suggestions!
=>
=> We have a couple more questions that I hope have easy answers. So, it's
=> been strongly suggested by several folks now that we back up our 200TB
=> of da
On 03/08/2012 05:37 PM, Martin Simmons wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 21:36:14 +0100, Kern Sibbald said:
>> Hello,
>>
>> In looking at the output below, I have a similar comment to Martin
>> about bat and bconsole. First, you should understand that currently
>> the Director only has a concept o
Thanks for the suggestions!
We have a couple more questions that I hope have easy answers. So, it's
been strongly suggested by several folks now that we back up our 200TB
of data in smaller chunks. This is our structure:
We have our 200TB in one directory. From there we have about 10,000
su
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 21:36:14 +0100, Kern Sibbald said:
>
> Hello,
>
> In looking at the output below, I have a similar comment to Martin
> about bat and bconsole. First, you should understand that currently
> the Director only has a concept of a *single* console. When you
> run with bat,
I'm trying to back up a Windows 7 DELL laptop but it keeps insisting on trying
to back up 56GB of data. I've added exclude entries for most of the folders
I don't want to back up but they're still being included, as confirmed in an
estimate job=ladmina listing level=Full
run. I have checked t
On 03/08/2012 09:52 AM, Josh Fisher wrote:
> Are you sure it is related to job completion and not just time? Does
> your firewall limit the number of new TCP connections to port 9101, as
> for example with the iptables -m limit module?
There is no firewall between any of the machines involved.
On 3/7/2012 5:28 PM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> On 03/07/2012 03:36 PM, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> In looking at the output below, I have a similar comment to Martin
>> about bat and bconsole. First, you should understand that currently
>> the Director only has a concept of a *single* cons
Hi Markus,
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 09:09:22AM +0100, Markus Kress wrote:
> defined sequence. In other words: only the backup and verify jobs should
> run concurrently, the admin jobs in a defined sequence before and after all
> other jobs.
> admin job 1
> admin job 2
> admin job 3
> backup job cli
Op 8/03/2012 9:09, Markus Kress schreef:
Hello
I did not understand how Maximum Concurrent Jobs works. In special the
sentence "Note, this directive limits only Jobs with the same name as the
resource in which it appears ".
I try to describe what I want. I have some jobs of type admin. They have
Hello
I did not understand how Maximum Concurrent Jobs works. In special the
sentence "Note, this directive limits only Jobs with the same name as the
resource in which it appears ".
I try to describe what I want. I have some jobs of type admin. They have to
be run before backup jobs in a defined
18 matches
Mail list logo
