Hi,
On 5/29/2007 11:16 PM, Bill Moran wrote:
> In response to Arno Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> [snip]
>
> This is how my Pool is defined:
>
> Pool {
>Name = dss07-pool
>Pool Type = Backup
>LabelFormat = dss07-
>AutoPrune = yes
>Volume Rete
In response to Arno Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
> >>>
> >>> This is how my Pool is defined:
> >>>
> >>> Pool {
> >>>Name = dss07-pool
> >>>Pool Type = Backup
> >>>LabelFormat = dss07-
> >>>AutoPrune = yes
> >>>Volume Retention = 14 days
> >>>Maximum Volume Bytes =
Hi,
On 5/29/2007 10:52 PM, Joseph Wright wrote:
> On May 29, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Arno Lehmann wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 5/29/2007 7:38 PM, Joseph Wright wrote:
>>> I went from having a device which interleaved jobs from various
>>> clients to having separate devices for each client, although they ar
On May 29, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Arno Lehmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 5/29/2007 7:38 PM, Joseph Wright wrote:
>> I went from having a device which interleaved jobs from various
>> clients to having separate devices for each client, although they are
>> all using the same storage pool.
>
> This is probabl
Hi,
On 5/29/2007 7:38 PM, Joseph Wright wrote:
> I went from having a device which interleaved jobs from various
> clients to having separate devices for each client, although they are
> all using the same storage pool.
This is probably one area where the recent improvements to the
reservati
I went from having a device which interleaved jobs from various
clients to having separate devices for each client, although they are
all using the same storage pool. Now there are occasions where a job
tries to create a new volume that another job has already created.
Instead of skipping
