Hi Kern, yes, I know - I should have mentioned that we're still running
an earlier version of Bacula. But my main point was that Postgres 10
doesn't seem to have any issues for us.
cheers,
--tom
On 09/07/2018 02:41 PM, Kern Sibbald wrote:
On 09/07/2018 12:05 PM, Thomas Lohman wrote:
FWI
Apparently so, since the job(s) completed normally last night. I do
appreciate the feedback, though.
In trying to get all the parameters to match between both systems, I had
set the device name in the bacula-sd.conf file incorrectly.
On the primary, this is from bacula-dir.conf:
Storage {
Na
On 9/6/2018 1:17 PM, Brendan Martin wrote:
I have configured a copy job on my primary backup server. The copy
volumes will be on a secondary system running another storage daemon.
Both systems are running Bacula 7.4.4 on Debian 9.
From the primary console, this command:
status storage=
FWIW we have not seen any compatibility problems in v.10, but we're not
using it with bacula. All I can see in bacula is
/usr/libexec/bacula/create_postgresql_database:
We've been using Bacula with Postgres 10.x on RH Enterprise 7.5 for a
few months now with no issues. The only change to Ba
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 16:10:00 +0100, Adam Weremczuk said:
>
> On 06/09/18 16:00, Martin Simmons wrote:
>
> >> 3 million files, not one?
> >> What am I doing wrong?
> > Nothing is wrong -- the regexp is used during the restore to choose which
> > files to extract. It has to scan the whole bac
