Re: [Bacula-users] Considering upgrade from bacula 1.38.11

2009-01-30 Thread Arno Lehmann
Hi, 29.01.2009 11:19, ToMasz wrote: > I've been using bacula 1.38.11 for some time and recently upgraded > successfully one of my file daemons to ver. 2.4.4. > Now I'm thinking about complete upgrade on all machines including > director but am unsure about possible pitfalls. There are some pitfal

Re: [Bacula-users] Considering upgrade from bacula 1.38.11

2009-01-29 Thread John Drescher
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Allan Black wrote: > John Drescher wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:19 AM, ToMasz wrote: >>> I've been using bacula 1.38.11 for some time and recently upgraded >>> successfully one of my file daemons to ver. 2.4.4. >>> Now I'm thinking about complete upgrade on

Re: [Bacula-users] Considering upgrade from bacula 1.38.11

2009-01-29 Thread Bruno Friedmann
John Drescher wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:19 AM, ToMasz wrote: >> I've been using bacula 1.38.11 for some time and recently upgraded >> successfully one of my file daemons to ver. 2.4.4. >> Now I'm thinking about complete upgrade on all machines including >> director but am unsure about pos

Re: [Bacula-users] Considering upgrade from bacula 1.38.11

2009-01-29 Thread Allan Black
John Drescher wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:19 AM, ToMasz wrote: >> I've been using bacula 1.38.11 for some time and recently upgraded >> successfully one of my file daemons to ver. 2.4.4. >> Now I'm thinking about complete upgrade on all machines including >> director but am unsure about pos

Re: [Bacula-users] Considering upgrade from bacula 1.38.11

2009-01-29 Thread John Drescher
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:19 AM, ToMasz wrote: > I've been using bacula 1.38.11 for some time and recently upgraded > successfully one of my file daemons to ver. 2.4.4. > Now I'm thinking about complete upgrade on all machines including > director but am unsure about possible pitfalls. > Will my c