Dave wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks for your reply. For me and i don't know if this is in general,
> but in 5.0 there's a new timeout feature and when it kicks in if bacula is
> running i end up with table corruption.
This can be worked around on the MySQL side.
http://paramount.ind.wpi.edu/wiki/dok
ot;Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Ryan Novosielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] bacula database comparison and pitfallsbacula
database comparison
> Dave wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Thanks for your repl
Hello,
I have been running MySQL 5.0.20 on a Solaris SPARC SunFire V240 system
for over 10 months with no problems. I use it for a bugzilla database
along with bacula.
> All I've got is "don't use SQLite, particularly v3.0 for production."
> There is tuning to make SQLite quicker in v3.0 than t
L PROTECTED]>
To: "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] bacula database comparison and pitfallsbacula
database comparison
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> All I've got is "don&#x
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All I've got is "don't use SQLite, particularly v3.0 for production."
There is tuning to make SQLite quicker in v3.0 than the default (some
feature from v2.0 to v3.0 was turned on that slows things down), but
it's still not really a database designed f
Hello,
I'm about to create a new bacula server and given the issues i've had
with mysql5 i do not believe i will be using it. Does anyone have a
comparison of the various databases, sqlite, postgresql, and mysql,
specifically with bacula? I'm looking for issues with database interaction
as
