In my last email, I did forget to mention that as you point out, the
problem can also result from a design issue. And the resolution of
those problems from design issues fall into my point 2. If we have a
good test case that shows the problem, even if it results from a design
decision, most of th
Your analysis(es) of the situation sounds correct to me. The big
problems for developers are:
1. Race conditions such as you mention are difficult to reproduce. If
we have a script that will reproduce it every time or nearly every time,
it is relatively easy though sometimes a lot of work to fi
With current versions of Bacula, you
are limited to a single Job running on Windows machines with VSS
enabled.
If VSS is disabled, you can run multiple simultaneous Windows
backups.
Best regards,
Kern
On 22.04.2015 11:11, Oli
I guess it is semantics, but I was just pointing out that it was not a
coding issue, but rather a design issue/choice.
You can divide the jobs into different pools and then give jobs in the
same pools different priorities. The pools allow multiple jobs (from
different pools) to run concurrently
To avoid hijacking the question and to address whether it's a bug or not:
Why it's a bug - request for media that is unavailable because it is
already in use whether for a backup or recovery by a new backup job is a
bug when other perfectly good media is available. One should not need to
create s
On 4/24/2015 9:14 AM, Clark, Patricia A. wrote:
> This is a known bug that has been reported, but still exists. The job wants
> the tape in use by another job that is using it in drive 0.
I'm not convinced that this is a bug. By design, Bacula allows more than
one job to simultaneously write t
On 04/24/2015 04:43 PM, Eric Bollengier wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 24/04/2015 15:23, Silver Salonen wrote:
>> On 04/24/2015 01:13 PM, Eric Bollengier wrote:
>>> On 24/04/2015 11:43, Silver Salonen wrote:
I did test it with 7.0.5 at latest. This "restriction" is actually that
the restore does
Hello,
On 24/04/2015 15:23, Silver Salonen wrote:
> On 04/24/2015 01:13 PM, Eric Bollengier wrote:
>> On 24/04/2015 11:43, Silver Salonen wrote:
>>> I did test it with 7.0.5 at latest. This "restriction" is actually that
>>> the restore does not include the files from Base job although it should.
On 04/24/2015 01:13 PM, Eric Bollengier wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 24/04/2015 11:43, Silver Salonen wrote:
>> I did test it with 7.0.5 at latest. This "restriction" is actually that
>> the restore does not include the files from Base job although it should.
>> It also seems that somewhere the informati
This is a known bug that has been reported, but still exists. The job wants
the tape in use by another job that is using it in drive 0. Your options are:
1. Let it wait until the job(s) using the tape in drive 0 finishes. The
pitfall here is if the tape becomes full.
2. Cancel the job(s
Hi Ana
Its a possibility although the estimate doesn't seem to factor in compression
(not an issue for me) or the volume overhead.
I guess we could always allocate one extra volume to cover this and then at the
end remove any unused volumes.
I tried post processing (renaming the file and cat
Hello,
On 24/04/2015 11:43, Silver Salonen wrote:
>
> I did test it with 7.0.5 at latest. This "restriction" is actually that
> the restore does not include the files from Base job although it should.
> It also seems that somewhere the information is there because otherwise
> it wouldn't even try
On 04/24/2015 11:14 AM, Eric Bollengier wrote:
> Hello,
>
>>> Indeed, I now confirmed that:
>>> - I could browse for files for restore after bscanning the Full backup
>>> volume
>>> - even though I bscanned also Base backup volume these files could not
>>> be restored (still getting "Error: fil
Hello,
>> Indeed, I now confirmed that:
>> - I could browse for files for restore after bscanning the Full backup
>> volume
>> - even though I bscanned also Base backup volume these files could not
>> be restored (still getting "Error: file_create.c:382 Unknown file type
>> 24; not restored:")
Hi ,
Yes, I tried to mount from bconsole-->mount, but still error is same.
Appreciate if some can quickly help to resolve this issue.
Device "Drive-1" (/dev/nst1) open but no Bacula volume is currently mounted.
Device is BLOCKED waiting for mount of volume "NY5039L4",
Pool:Bil
15 matches
Mail list logo