On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:01:52PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> I don't think there is any need for either a -e option nor a -b option. Both
> can easily be done via the shell.
-e can indeed easily be done from the shell. But the caller isn't
always a shell environment. It's usually possible
On Tuesday 25 May 2010 15:13:36 Anatoly Pugachev wrote:
> On 04.05.2010 / 13:33:12 -0400, Morty Abzug wrote:
> > However, format/architectural issues are indeed harder to overcome.
> > There are a number of limitations I have encountered with bacula, and
> > it looks like at least some of them migh
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:13:36PM +0400, Anatoly Pugachev wrote:
> On 04.05.2010 / 13:33:12 -0400, Morty Abzug wrote:
> > (12) bconsole should support an option for execute-one-command (i.e. -e)
>
> how it is different from:
>
> echo list jobs | bconsole
>
> but I've tried to implement "-e " c
On 04.05.2010 / 13:33:12 -0400, Morty Abzug wrote:
> However, format/architectural issues are indeed harder to overcome.
> There are a number of limitations I have encountered with bacula, and
> it looks like at least some of them might be fundamental to bacula's
> architecture. My list:
>
> (12)
> -Original Message-
> From: Phil Stracchino [mailto:ala...@metrocast.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 2:50 PM
> To: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Idea/suggestion for dedicated disk-based sd
>
> On 04/06/10 17:17, Kevin Keane
Phil Stracchino wrote:
>> Most practical disk backup setups will involve large RAID-5, RAID-6 or
>> RAID-10 arrays. These tend to be striped across the spindles anyway, and
>> the file system is rarely properly aware of how this striping occurs.
>
> *nod* Indeed. Nor should it care, since for ge
On 04/07/10 18:52, Robert LeBlanc wrote:
> I didn't think about the copy/migration jobs (I'm using them), and
> that would be a problem. It seems for this to take off, the
> copy/migration between SDs will have to be implemented. We would have
> to look at the stream as a copy/migration is happenin
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> After having thought about this a bit, I believe the idea has
> significant merit. Tape and disk differ significantly enough that there
> is no conceptual reason not to have separate tape-specific and
> disk-specific SDs. So long as the st
On 04/07/10 12:06, Robert LeBlanc wrote (in bacula-users):
> So still thinking about this, is there any reason to not have a
> hierarchical file structure for disk based backup rather than a
> serialized stream? Here are my thought, any comments welcome to have a
> good discussion about this.
>
>
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Robert LeBlanc wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Craig Ringer
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> Is this insane? Or a viable approach to tackling some of the
>> complexities of faking tape backup on disk as Bacula currently tries to do?
>>
>
> I love Bacula and ha
On 04/07/10 01:13, Craig Ringer wrote:
> You appear to be assuming that "disk backup" == "single disk backup" or
> "set of simple disks".
No, not at all. (Though in many smaller installations, it is.) I was
just noting that a single-purpose disk backup tool in which elimination
of interleaving a
On 04/07/10 01:05, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Phil Stracchino wrote:
>> It is possible right now to open more than one file-based volume at a
>> time.
>> You simply need to define multiple storage devices under the same
>> storage daemon; each device can have one volume open at a time.
>
> Yep. My sugg
Phil Stracchino wrote:
> On 04/06/10 02:37, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> Is this insane? Or a viable approach to tackling some of the
>> complexities of faking tape backup on disk as Bacula currently tries to do?
>
> Well, just off the top of my head, the first thing that comes to mind is
> that the onl
Phil Stracchino wrote:
> It is possible right now to open more than one file-based volume at a
> time.
> You simply need to define multiple storage devices under the same
> storage daemon; each device can have one volume open at a time.
Yep. My suggestion was merely a way around the inconvenience
On 04/06/10 17:17, Kevin Keane wrote:
>> Automatic volume deletion can be handled fairly simply using an
>> admin job that runs a script to delete expired volumes; I've
>> attached mine as an example.
>
> I know, that's what I've been doing. But it is a really ugly hack:
> for such a routine opera
> -Original Message-
> From: Phil Stracchino [mailto:ala...@metrocast.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 6:05 AM
> To: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Idea/suggestion for dedicated disk-based sd
>
> On 04/06/10 05:51, Kevin Keane
On 04/06/10 14:18, Henrik Johansen wrote:
> [...] when ZFS flushes its transaction groups to spinning rust.
heh. :)
--
Phil Stracchino, CDK#2 DoD#299792458 ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
ala...@caerllewys.net ala...@metrocast.net p...@co.ordinate.org
Renaissance Man, Unix ronin
On 04/ 6/10 06:28 PM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> On 04/06/10 12:06, Josh Fisher wrote:
>> On 4/6/2010 8:42 AM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
>>> On 04/06/10 02:37, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> Well, just off the top of my head, the first thing that comes to mind is
>>> that the only ways such a scheme is not goi
On 04/06/10 12:06, Josh Fisher wrote:
> On 4/6/2010 8:42 AM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
>> On 04/06/10 02:37, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> Well, just off the top of my head, the first thing that comes to mind is
>> that the only ways such a scheme is not going to result in massive disk
>> fragmentation are:
On 4/6/2010 8:42 AM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> On 04/06/10 02:37, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>> Is this insane? Or a viable approach to tackling some of the
>> complexities of faking tape backup on disk as Bacula currently tries to do?
>>
> Well, just off the top of my head, the first thing th
On 04/ 6/10 02:42 PM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> On 04/06/10 02:37, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> Is this insane? Or a viable approach to tackling some of the
>> complexities of faking tape backup on disk as Bacula currently tries to do?
>
> Well, just off the top of my head, the first thing that comes to m
On 04/06/10 05:51, Kevin Keane wrote:
> There are still a few things that don't work well with bacula.
> Concurrency is one - it should really be possible to open more than
> one file-based volume at the same time. Automatically deleting
> file-based volumes from disk is another (I think the new 5.
On Tuesday 06 April 2010 13:46:33 Craig Ringer wrote:
> I guess if disk-based Devices could be opened multiple times with
> different volumes, there'd be no real need for the sd to auto-define
> devices on demand.
>
> > There are still a few things that don't work well with bacula. Concurrency
is
On 04/06/10 02:37, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Is this insane? Or a viable approach to tackling some of the
> complexities of faking tape backup on disk as Bacula currently tries to do?
Well, just off the top of my head, the first thing that comes to mind is
that the only ways such a scheme is not going
Kevin Keane wrote:
> Hi,
>
> First of all - I agree that the volume handling on disks is one of bacula's
> two weakest points. Whether a dedicated disk-based SD would actually solve
> anything is an open question in my mind, though, because most of the problems
> come from the overall architect
Hi,
First of all - I agree that the volume handling on disks is one of bacula's two
weakest points. Whether a dedicated disk-based SD would actually solve anything
is an open question in my mind, though, because most of the problems come from
the overall architecture, and that's largely baked i
26 matches
Mail list logo
