On Tuesday 20 March 2007 13:42, Jorj Bauer wrote:
> > Can you explain what you mean by "one of the lite mechanisms"?
>
> SQLite or SQLite3.
OK, I understand.
> I don't believe they have any remote access directly.
No, they are compiled in (or can run as a shared library).
>
> > I see no nee
> Can you explain what you mean by "one of the lite mechanisms"?
SQLite or SQLite3. I don't believe they have any remote access directly.
> I see no need to have each Storage daemon have its own database.
The only reason I mention it is because of the non-remote-access
database methods.
-- Jorj
On Tuesday 20 March 2007 12:51, Jorj Bauer wrote:
> > > Out of curiosity, what -- down the line -- would the -sd require a
> > > database for? Config info?
> >
> > Config info in the database -- never. Only people who have never done a
bare
> > metal recovery would think of such an implementati
> > Out of curiosity, what -- down the line -- would the -sd require a
> > database for? Config info?
>
> Config info in the database -- never. Only people who have never done a bare
> metal recovery would think of such an implementation :-).
>
> bscan built into the SD. However, I *might* do
On Tuesday 20 March 2007 02:41, Ryan Novosielski wrote:
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > The SD does not "currently" need/use the DB (this will probably chang).
> > However, some of the other tools that are built with the SD do need the
DB,
> > therefore the dependence. If you want ONLY the SD, for the
Hi,
Ryan Novosielski wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> The SD does not "currently" need/use the DB (this will probably chang).
>> However, some of the other tools that are built with the SD do need the DB,
>> therefore the dependence. If you w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> The SD does not "currently" need/use the DB (this will probably chang).
> However, some of the other tools that are built with the SD do need the DB,
> therefore the dependence. If you want ONLY the SD, for the current time, y
On Friday 16 March 2007 15:19, Richard Adams wrote:
> I know this is likely a dumb question, but it was my understanding
> that the storage daemon was independent of the SQL database, but I
> have been unable to figure out a way to build additional storage
> daemons on other machines without
I know this is likely a dumb question, but it was my understanding
that the storage daemon was independent of the SQL database, but I
have been unable to figure out a way to build additional storage
daemons on other machines without including a build of mySQL or
SQLite. Is there something
