> 1) i'm not still sure is a compatibility trouble.
I reply to myself, because still i don't think is a 'compatibility' trouble,
and, as st.paul 'lightned' in the road to damasco, i've understood.
Storage daemons are effectively some virtualization hosts (Proxmox), and
have two addresses, one
Mandi! Gary R. Schmidt
In chel di` si favelave...
> I'm still running old FDs - 3.0.3 on some AIX boxes being the oldest -
> talking to a 9.4.2 DIR/SD on Solaris 11.3, and all is good.
Ah! Also 3.X?! Cool... i think i was using old software... ;-)
> How much RAM is on your server, and how ar
Mandi! Phil Stracchino
In chel di` si favelave...
> Is it *feasible* to install enough of a local development environment on
> these legacy servers to locally compile a 7.x client for them?
Sure, i can try to ''backport'' bacula debian packages and deploy on these
servers but... first... how c
On 23/06/2022 02:39, Marco Gaiarin wrote:
I'm setting up a Bacula installation for a set of servers, using debian
buster package (9.4.2-2+deb10u1) for director and storage daemons.
All works as expected until we use file daemon versions 7+, but some very
old servers that have bacula 5.0 or 5.2
On 6/22/22 16:51, Marco Gaiarin wrote:
Mandi! Phil Stracchino
In chel di` si favelave...
The first and most obvious question here is: Is there some sound
technical reason why you have not updated the file daemons on those
servers to something at least moderately recent?
Never hear of 'leg
Mandi! Phil Stracchino
In chel di` si favelave...
> The first and most obvious question here is: Is there some sound
> technical reason why you have not updated the file daemons on those
> servers to something at least moderately recent?
Never hear of 'legacy systems'?! ;-)
These are a bunc
On 6/22/22 12:39, Marco Gaiarin wrote:
I'm setting up a Bacula installation for a set of servers, using debian
buster package (9.4.2-2+deb10u1) for director and storage daemons.
All works as expected until we use file daemon versions 7+, but some very
old servers that have bacula 5.0 or 5.2 doe
On 11/30/2014 09:55 PM, Erik P. Olsen wrote:
> Is it possible to run bacula-dir and bacula-sd on bacula-5.2.13 with
> bacula-fd
> running 7.0.x on another box?
>
No
--
Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grad
Hi Erik,
> Is it possible to run bacula-dir and bacula-sd on bacula-5.2.13 with
> bacula-fd running 7.0.x on another box?
The only officially supported combination is (director version == storage
daemon version) >= file daemon version.
Your mileage may vary but don't expect a newer file daemon
It is highly unlikely it is compatible, and even if it works, at some
point in time, it is likely to fail. I do not recommend trying it.
Kern
On 09/26/2014 02:16 PM, Andreas Frömmel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is the bacula-client 7.05 compatible with the bacula-server 5.2.6 ?
> Best regards,
>
> --
> A
Andreas,
Didn't tested, but Bacula it's history likely to have problems if clients
version > director version.
The inverse however its usually tolerable.
Regards,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Andreas Frömmel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is the bacula-client 7.05 compatible with the bacula-server 5.
> I'd like to know whether anybody has had any Bacula experience with this
> media:
> HP StorageWorks DAT 320 USB Internal Tape Drive AJ825A
> We are planning to buy one and would like to be sure it will work with
> Bacula (On a Linux or a BSD).
> The Bacula Wiki mentions one, but it is a
On 10/26/2010 09:53 PM, Charles Nadeau wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a little compatibility problem.
> My Bacula director runs version 2.4.4 on Gentoo
> My client runs bacula-fd version 2.4.4 on Ubuntu 10.10:
>
> *m
> 26-Oct 15:33 Mosix3-dir JobId 10161: Start Backup JobId 10161,
> Job=LaptopJoUbunt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Drescher escribió:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Matias Banchoff
> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hello, we're backing up some servers, and we ended up with
>> different Bacula versions. Our dir and sd is 2.4.2
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Matias Banchoff
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello,
> we're backing up some servers, and we ended up with different Bacula
> versions. Our dir and sd is 2.4.2, and the clients are 1.36.3, 1.38.7,
> 1.38.11, 2.0.0, 2.2.8, 2.4.1 and 2
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 03:22:24PM -0500, Scott Courtney wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 11:08 -0600, Heitor Medrado de Faria wrote:
> > > I couldn't find anything going back that far in the docs. Does
> > anyone
> > > happen to know offhand what the latest director is that can still
> > > connect t
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 11:08 -0600, Heitor Medrado de Faria wrote:
> > I couldn't find anything going back that far in the docs. Does
> anyone
> > happen to know offhand what the latest director is that can still
> > connect to file daemon 2.0.3?
> >
> I guess 3.x and 5.x directors still can work
Scott Courtney wrote:
> The old server is running 2.0.3. I'd like to know if I can install a
> newer FD on the new clients -- I'm thinking 2.2.8, which is the latest
> of the 2.2 series -- temporarily to get us online while I build the new
> server.
>
The clients should not be newer than the ser
Marek Simon wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a box with pretty old operating system, which cannot be upgraded,
> but I need to have there a bacula client. The newest version I have run
> there was 1.36.6. I have Director 2.4.4. The full backup was OK, but
> when I start an Incremental Job I got this Error:
Hi,
Familiarize yourself with the 'mt', 'tapeinfo', and 'mtx' commands. They are
standard Linux commands for dealing with the tape drives.
Then try out the 'btape' regular and autochanger tests:
http://bacula.org/3.0.x-manuals/en/utility/utility/Volume_Utility_Tools.html#SECTION0029
Hi,
Operating System will be gnu/linux debian.
If the Tandberg LTO-4 device is known by my OS, i can consider it will
function with bacula system ?
Thanks.
Arno Lehmann a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> 15.10.2009 13:38, Piing - Damien CHEVALIER wrote:
>
>> Is Tandberg LTO-4 HH (3504-LTO model) compatib
Hi,
15.10.2009 13:38, Piing - Damien CHEVALIER wrote:
> Is Tandberg LTO-4 HH (3504-LTO model) compatible with bacula backup system ?
Almost certainly, it mostly depends on your operating system... under
linux/unix, as long as you've got the proper device nodes like
/dev/nstX and can use the dev
Daniel Bareiro schrieb:
>
> When updating an installation of Debian GNU/Linux testing I see that
> with this was updated the installed version of bacula-fd, being
> now installed 3.0.2-3+b1, of Debian testing repositories.
>
> The problem with this is I am observing that, for some reason, the
> B
> When updating an installation of Debian GNU/Linux testing I see that
> with this was updated the installed version of bacula-fd, being
> now installed 3.0.2-3+b1, of Debian testing repositories.
>
> The problem with this is I am observing that, for some reason, the
> Bacula server cannot communic
On Saturday 08 April 2006 13:29, Timo Neuvonen wrote:
> Are there any known compatibility issues between latest Bacula source and
> Fedora Core 5, or MySQL 5 (that comes with FC5)?
Yes, it is *highly* recommended that you apply the 1.38.7-mysql.patch that is
available in the Bacula "patches" sect
On Sunday 20 November 2005 23:55, Georg Altmann wrote:
> --On Thursday, November 17, 2005 23:56:35 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
> > We want to work with a Tandberg StorageLoader LTO2.
> > It have 8 tapes and one drive.
> > I have looked at the list with the known compatible autoloaders
> > bu
--On Thursday, November 17, 2005 23:56:35 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
We want to work with a Tandberg StorageLoader LTO2.
It have 8 tapes and one drive.
I have looked at the list with the known compatible autoloaders
but I cant find any information about this one.
Does anyone know whethe
27 matches
Mail list logo
