On Tuesday 10 April 2007 14:42, Josh Fisher wrote:
>
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > On Monday 09 April 2007 21:22, Josh Fisher wrote:
> >
> >> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Monday 09 April 2007 16:20, Josh Fisher wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> There's no reason they cannot use the same
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On Monday 09 April 2007 21:22, Josh Fisher wrote:
>
>> Kern Sibbald wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday 09 April 2007 16:20, Josh Fisher wrote:
>>>
>>>
There's no reason they cannot use the same pool. They just cannot write
to the same volume concurrently. Wi
Dear Josh
I am running concurrent backups to a Firewire attached 1 TB disc with he
Max Concurrent Jobs set to 5 ( in my situation it seems the optimal value ).
The Incremental jobs stay on the disc for 6 weeks but the Full backups
are migrated to tape.
I also have the problem with slow clients
On Monday 09 April 2007 21:22, Josh Fisher wrote:
>
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > On Monday 09 April 2007 16:20, Josh Fisher wrote:
> >
> >> There's no reason they cannot use the same pool. They just cannot write
> >> to the same volume concurrently. With a tape device, that would be a
> >> probl
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On Monday 09 April 2007 16:20, Josh Fisher wrote:
>
>> There's no reason they cannot use the same pool. They just cannot write
>> to the same volume concurrently. With a tape device, that would be a
>> problem because there can only be one volume in the tape drive.
>>
>
> This is not true within Bacula. For each Device (tape, DVD, disk, FIFO, ...)
> Bacula has a single file descriptor thus only one Volume can be open for each
> Device, whether tape or disk. Multiple jobs can be simultanously writing to
> that Volume. However, since a Volume can be in only
On Monday 09 April 2007 16:20, Josh Fisher wrote:
> There's no reason they cannot use the same pool. They just cannot write
> to the same volume concurrently. With a tape device, that would be a
> problem because there can only be one volume in the tape drive.
True.
> However
> with a disk d
There's no reason they cannot use the same pool. They just cannot write
to the same volume concurrently. With a tape device, that would be a
problem because there can only be one volume in the tape drive. However
with a disk device, a volume is a file, so there can be numerous volumes
being wri
