> > Since migration is a significant new
> > feature, it strikes me as a very good opportunity to start heading
in
> > that direction.
> Yes, that is a good point that I probably did not consider enough.
Well, it's not like you don't have anything else to do...8-)
> Yes, on second thought we pr
On Friday 24 November 2006 21:06, David Boyes wrote:
> > Thanks for your thoughts. I think there are several points that you
> have
> > minimized or overlooked in your response:
> >
> > 1. Bacula currently permits specifying multiple Media Types in a Pool.
> > 2. Bacula currently permits Storage
> Thanks for your thoughts. I think there are several points that you
have
> minimized or overlooked in your response:
>
> 1. Bacula currently permits specifying multiple Media Types in a Pool.
> 2. Bacula currently permits Storage devices to be specified in the Job
> resource
> 3. Bacula current
Hello David,
Thanks for your thoughts. I think there are several points that you have
minimized or overlooked in your response:
1. Bacula currently permits specifying multiple Media Types in a Pool.
2. Bacula currently permits Storage devices to be specified in the Job
resource
3. Bacula curre
If this one really holds - simple is beautiful is my vote too
Steen
Onsdag 22 november 2006 20:32 skrev David Boyes:
> > I did not always do that, but I learned that the flexibility of pools
> > across different storage devices and media types is less valuable than
>
> a
>
> > simple setup.
>
>
> I did not always do that, but I learned that the flexibility of pools
> across different storage devices and media types is less valuable than
a
> simple setup.
Multi-type pools also make backup and storage management policy almost
impossible to implement. If we define a pool as an administrativ
Hi,
On 11/22/2006 7:35 PM, David Boyes wrote:
> Kern:
>>Defining and figuring out what storage device is going to be used has
>>become a
>>bit too complicated in version 1.39.x. This is mainly due to the fact
>>that
>>we have two different storage devices for each job and three possible
>>places
> Defining and figuring out what storage device is going to be used has
> become a
> bit too complicated in version 1.39.x. This is mainly due to the fact
> that
> we have two different storage devices for each job and three possible
> places
> to specify them:
My 2 cents worth:
This can be simp
