Hello, folks! Sorry for this ugly $subject.
I've been playing with bacula and noticed a strange behaviour. I have configured a Pool with disk volumes of size 100MB each. On one run I wrote three tapes. Then I've deleted the catalog and recreated it with the scripts shipped with bacula. On the next run bacula took the first tape, seeked to the end and started to write another 100MB appended to the volume resulting in volume of size 200MB. I think this is not a user-expectable behaviour of "Maximum Volume Bytes", i.e. I think this is a bug, no? I use Maximum Volume Bytes in order to fill up my partitions as much as possible. I've learned the folowing rule of thumb: If the partition is under heavy load you should take care that it doesn't fill up more than 70% (one opinion, there are others like 80%). However I'd like to use approx 100% and then I have a fragmentation, i.e. performance, issue. Don't you think it would be clever that bacula didn't truncate each recycled volume file and start with size 0, but instead leave the file allocated on disk as it is and just start over-writing from the beginning, just as bacula would do on tape volumes? That way the disk volumes would be allocated statically on disk and one could try to defragment it more or less appropiately once and afterwards there would be not fragmentation added by bacula, since it doesn't need to allocate disk blocks again and again? My two cents, /HM ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
