Perhaps by distributing the load over several director ?
Le 9 avril 2012 22:42, John Drescher a écrit :
>
> Neither of these will effect the problem you are trying to solve.
>
> John
>
--
Better than sec? Nothing is bett
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Julien S wrote:
> Do you think if I tuning databases with :
> http://www.newitperson.com/2011/01/reduce-bacula-dbcheck-time/
> CREATE INDEX File_JobId_idx ON File(JobId);
> CREATE INDEX File_PathId_idx ON File(PathId);
> CREATE INDEX File_FilenameId_idx ON File(File
Do you think if I tuning databases with :
http://www.newitperson.com/2011/01/reduce-bacula-dbcheck-time/
CREATE INDEX File_JobId_idx ON File(JobId);
CREATE INDEX File_PathId_idx ON File(PathId);
CREATE INDEX File_FilenameId_idx ON File(FilenameId);
CREATE INDEX Path_PathId_idx ON Path(PathId);
CREA
Le 6 avril 2012 18:10, John Drescher a écrit :
> > I have a bacual-dir with ~250 clients. And each client has its own
> catalog.
> >
> > When bacula-dir start, bacula-dir checks each database (~10s per client =
> > ~45 minutes !!!)
> > Meanwhile, the director is not accessible...
> >
> > How can
> I have a bacual-dir with ~250 clients. And each client has its own catalog.
>
> When bacula-dir start, bacula-dir checks each database (~10s per client =
> ~45 minutes !!!)
> Meanwhile, the director is not accessible...
>
> How can I bypass that or reduce that ?
>
I would try speeding up your da
Hi,
I have a bacual-dir with ~250 clients. And each client has its own catalog.
When bacula-dir start, bacula-dir checks each database (~10s per client =
~45 minutes !!!)
Meanwhile, the director is not accessible...
How can I bypass that or reduce that ?
Thanks in advance,
--
Julien
---
