On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Allan Black <allan.bl...@btconnect.com> wrote: > John Drescher wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:19 AM, ToMasz <nunatars...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I've been using bacula 1.38.11 for some time and recently upgraded >>> successfully one of my file daemons to ver. 2.4.4. >>> Now I'm thinking about complete upgrade on all machines including >>> director but am unsure about possible pitfalls. >>> Will my config files still work? Or maybe newer versions use other >>> database solutions (I'm using internal bacula base)? >> Your config files will work on every machine except possibly the >> director. Its been a very long time (2 years?) since I have used 1.38 >> so I am not very sure of the changes needed. > > I upgraded from 1.38.11 to 2.2.5, and then to 2.4.3, and I am sure I > did not have to make any configuration changes because of the Bacula > upgrade. I use both DLT and DAT drives and have an autochanger of each > drive type. I also use multiple pools, and more than one client OS. > > So, unless you have something really complicated, I would not expect > you to have to make any configuration changes because of the upgrade. > I was thinking of a few directives that were either changed or removed from the bacula-dir.conf file.
> > What you *will* have to do, though, is upgrade your database for the > new version. The database format has changed, so you would do well to > make a manual copy of the database files before you start, just in case > you need to revert to the old version while you fix some problem with > the new version. > Agreed. This is very important. John ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users