> Why would you ever want such a pool? The only reason I can think of is if > you have more pools than backup devices;
Exactly what you said. I have 20 pools and 2 backup devices with my 2 drive 24 slot autochanger. > but that's the opposite of the > problem I'm trying to solve. I have more backup devices than pools. In > some sense, I want to have multiple devices within the same pool. Ideally, > I'd like to have one of those devices in multiple pools. I want the volumes > and not the devices bound to the pool. Each pool could then tag any volumes > it uses with the correct pool label and return them to scratch when they > expire. That's that I was hoping for when I read the documentation for the > scratch pool, though that interpretation is apparently incorrect. > > The basic problem for me is that I've hit the 8 TB file system size limit > with ext3, and I don't have ext4 available to me yet. > I would use XFS over ext3. ext3 is horribly inefficient with large files. > With tape libraries, > you can keep adding more tapes to increase the size of your pool. With > disk-based backups, once you've hit that 8 TB limit with ext3, you can't. > So if that's the problem I'm trying to solve, what are my options with > Bacula? > Can you split your jobs up in some logical way so you can divide the storage in more than 1 part? John ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
