Re: [Bacula-users] Controlling concurrent jobs

2007-04-10 Thread Kern Sibbald
On Tuesday 10 April 2007 14:42, Josh Fisher wrote: > > Kern Sibbald wrote: > > On Monday 09 April 2007 21:22, Josh Fisher wrote: > > > >> Kern Sibbald wrote: > >> > >>> On Monday 09 April 2007 16:20, Josh Fisher wrote: > >>> > >>> > There's no reason they cannot use the same

Re: [Bacula-users] Controlling concurrent jobs

2007-04-10 Thread Josh Fisher
Kern Sibbald wrote: > On Monday 09 April 2007 21:22, Josh Fisher wrote: > >> Kern Sibbald wrote: >> >>> On Monday 09 April 2007 16:20, Josh Fisher wrote: >>> >>> There's no reason they cannot use the same pool. They just cannot write to the same volume concurrently. Wi

Re: [Bacula-users] Controlling concurrent jobs

2007-04-10 Thread Stephen Carr
Dear Josh I am running concurrent backups to a Firewire attached 1 TB disc with he Max Concurrent Jobs set to 5 ( in my situation it seems the optimal value ). The Incremental jobs stay on the disc for 6 weeks but the Full backups are migrated to tape. I also have the problem with slow clients

Re: [Bacula-users] Controlling concurrent jobs

2007-04-09 Thread Kern Sibbald
On Monday 09 April 2007 21:22, Josh Fisher wrote: > > Kern Sibbald wrote: > > On Monday 09 April 2007 16:20, Josh Fisher wrote: > > > >> There's no reason they cannot use the same pool. They just cannot write > >> to the same volume concurrently. With a tape device, that would be a > >> probl

Re: [Bacula-users] Controlling concurrent jobs

2007-04-09 Thread Josh Fisher
Kern Sibbald wrote: > On Monday 09 April 2007 16:20, Josh Fisher wrote: > >> There's no reason they cannot use the same pool. They just cannot write >> to the same volume concurrently. With a tape device, that would be a >> problem because there can only be one volume in the tape drive. >>

Re: [Bacula-users] Controlling concurrent jobs

2007-04-09 Thread Kyle Tucker
> > This is not true within Bacula. For each Device (tape, DVD, disk, FIFO, ...) > Bacula has a single file descriptor thus only one Volume can be open for each > Device, whether tape or disk. Multiple jobs can be simultanously writing to > that Volume. However, since a Volume can be in only

Re: [Bacula-users] Controlling concurrent jobs

2007-04-09 Thread Kern Sibbald
On Monday 09 April 2007 16:20, Josh Fisher wrote: > There's no reason they cannot use the same pool. They just cannot write > to the same volume concurrently. With a tape device, that would be a > problem because there can only be one volume in the tape drive. True. > However > with a disk d

Re: [Bacula-users] Controlling concurrent jobs

2007-04-09 Thread Josh Fisher
There's no reason they cannot use the same pool. They just cannot write to the same volume concurrently. With a tape device, that would be a problem because there can only be one volume in the tape drive. However with a disk device, a volume is a file, so there can be numerous volumes being wri

[Bacula-users] Controlling concurrent jobs

2007-04-08 Thread Kyle Tucker
Hi, I have a new Bacula 2.0.2 setup and I am backing up to disk. I have remote clients that are very slow to backup and often prevent my more important local clients from being backed up due to concurrency being set to 1 as I don't want to get into the issues with interleaving as it's