On Thursday 13 April 2006 16:51, David Boyes wrote:
> > > Kind of a misleading name, though. It's really a volume state
>
> indication
>
> > > -- eg, the volume is mountable or not.
> >
> > In its current usage, I find it to be the best name. It indicates if
>
> the
>
> > volume is in the changer
> > Kind of a misleading name, though. It's really a volume state
indication
> > -- eg, the volume is mountable or not.
> In its current usage, I find it to be the best name. It indicates if
the
> volume is in the changer or not.
It does work, but I think it reflects an assumption born of Bacula'
> Sorry, but I don't understand what a "MOVE VOLUME" -- or rather what
an
> operator area is. I do understand the concept of an area that is
> accessible
> from the outside without opening the library case.
Sorry -- terminology thing again. In the very large libraries (the big
STK and IBM silos),
> > I'm also unclear on whether Bacula currently tracks which volumes
are
> > in an autochanger. Right now, I have two volumes that are both
> > recorded in the database as "InChanger = 1" and "Slot = 4", but it's
> > not obvious which tape is actually in the changer.
An interesting question. Wou
On Tuesday 11 April 2006 20:41, David Boyes wrote:
> > Sorry, but I don't understand what a "MOVE VOLUME" -- or rather what
>
> an
>
> > operator area is. I do understand the concept of an area that is
> > accessible
> > from the outside without opening the library case.
>
> Sorry -- terminology t
On Tuesday 11 April 2006 16:24, David Boyes wrote:
> > > I'm also unclear on whether Bacula currently tracks which volumes
>
> are
>
> > > in an autochanger. Right now, I have two volumes that are both
> > > recorded in the database as "InChanger = 1" and "Slot = 4", but it's
> > > not obvious whi
On Tuesday 11 April 2006 13:06, Alan Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> >> I'd like to add a third. I don't use scratch pools at all, currently,
> >> but I can't see why I'd want a new volume being added to the pool when
> >> I've got one in there that's supposed to be used.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Kern Sibbald wrote:
I'd like to add a third. I don't use scratch pools at all, currently,
but I can't see why I'd want a new volume being added to the pool when
I've got one in there that's supposed to be used. Wouldn't that mean
that it would ALWAYS choose a scratch volume
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, John Kodis wrote:
On a somewhat related note, I'm not clear on how the tape selection
algorithm is altered when an autochanger is available. For example,
if there are two equally eligible volumes available, only one of which
is in the autochanger, would this volume be prefe
Hello,
This Scratch pool algorithm problem has turned out to be quite interesting. As
it turns out, the guys that asked for the change in the algorithm were
correct and the guys that are complaining about the change in the algorithm
are correct, and best of all I think I have a solution that wi
On Monday 10 April 2006 18:07, Ludovic Strappazon wrote:
> Kern Sibbald a écrit :
> > On Monday 10 April 2006 17:29, Ryan Novosielski wrote:
> >> John Kodis wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 11:59:15AM +0100, Alan Brown wrote:
> If there are recyclable pool volumes in the changer then use t
Kern Sibbald a écrit :
On Monday 10 April 2006 17:29, Ryan Novosielski wrote:
John Kodis wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 11:59:15AM +0100, Alan Brown wrote:
If there are recyclable pool volumes in the changer then use them, else
use available scratch pool volumes.
Otherwise the
On Monday 10 April 2006 17:29, Ryan Novosielski wrote:
> John Kodis wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 11:59:15AM +0100, Alan Brown wrote:
> >> If there are recyclable pool volumes in the changer then use them, else
> >> use available scratch pool volumes.
> >>
> >> Otherwise the size of a tape poo
On Monday 10 April 2006 17:08, John Kodis wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 11:59:15AM +0100, Alan Brown wrote:
> > If there are recyclable pool volumes in the changer then use them, else
> > use available scratch pool volumes.
> >
> > Otherwise the size of a tape pool can effectively grow far more
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Kodis wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 11:59:15AM +0100, Alan Brown wrote:
>
>> If there are recyclable pool volumes in the changer then use them, else
>> use available scratch pool volumes.
>>
>> Otherwise the size of a tape pool can effectivel
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 11:59:15AM +0100, Alan Brown wrote:
> If there are recyclable pool volumes in the changer then use them, else
> use available scratch pool volumes.
>
> Otherwise the size of a tape pool can effectively grow far more rapidly
> than expected in the absence of a "max volume
On Monday 10 April 2006 12:59, Alan Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > For those of you who are for or against the new 1.38.6 code that takes
> > Volumes from the Scratch pool earlier in the algorithm, now is the time
> > to make your case. At this point, unless someone ca
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Kern Sibbald wrote:
For those of you who are for or against the new 1.38.6 code that takes Volumes
from the Scratch pool earlier in the algorithm, now is the time to make your
case. At this point, unless someone can convince me otherwise (again), I am
inclined to put it bac
18 matches
Mail list logo
