> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Zenge [mailto:pze...@ilinc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:59 AM
> To: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] SD Losing Track of Pool
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Steve El
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Simmons [mailto:mar...@lispworks.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:47 AM
> To: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] SD Losing Track of Pool
>
> >>>>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Ellis [mailto:el...@brouhaha.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:39 AM
> To: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] SD Losing Track of Pool
>
> On 1/20/2011 7:18 AM, Peter Zenge wrote:
> >&g
On 1/20/2011 7:18 AM, Peter Zenge wrote:
>>
>>> Second, in the Device Status section at the bottom, the pool of LF-F-
>> 0239 is
>>> listed as "*unknown*"; similarly, under "Jobs waiting to reserve a
>> drive",
>>> each job wants the correct pool, but the current pool is listed as
>> "".
>>
> Admit
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:18:35 -0700, Peter Zenge said:
>
> Admittedly I confused the issue by posting an example with two Pools
> involved. Even in that example though, there were jobs using the same pool
> as the mounted volume, and they wouldn't run until the 2 current jobs were
> done (wh
> From: Martin Simmons [mailto:mar...@lispworks.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:28 AM
> To: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] SD Losing Track of Pool
>
> >>>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:48:56 -0700, Peter Zenge said:
> >
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:48:56 -0700, Peter Zenge said:
>
> A couple days ago somebody made a comment that using pool overrides in a
> schedule was deprecated. I've been using them for years, but I've been
> seeing a strange problem recently that I'm thinking might be related.
>
> I'm runnin
