> Kern Sibbald wrote:
>
> The Storage Daemon shouldn't ever crash. If it does, it is a bug, and you
> really should report it (bugs database). However, you should probably be on
> 3.0.3 (I forget what version you are using). Even on 3.0.3, we have found
> several very unusual problems in th
On Monday 30 November 2009 02:00:22 Jim Barber wrote:
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I don't remember getting any feedback from you concerning my comments on
> > this proposal.
>
> Hi Kern.
>
> I wrote back saying that I may have underestimated that Bacula was smart
> enough to avoid usin
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I don't remember getting any feedback from you concerning my comments on this
> proposal.
Hi Kern.
I wrote back saying that I may have underestimated that Bacula was smart enough
to avoid using the same volume.
So I removed my hack to mark tapes as USED to see h
Hello,
I don't remember getting any feedback from you concerning my comments on this
proposal.
I have been thinking about it, and a second problem that you mentioned that I
did not address in my comments was that the Volume to be read must be marked
as Full or Used (if I remember right). I or
On Tuesday 24 November 2009 22:15:35 Martin Simmons wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:16:33 +0100, Kern Sibbald said:
> >
> > On Friday 20 November 2009 14:44:54 Martin Simmons wrote:
> > > It there a technical reason why the NextPool directive is part of the
> > > pool at all?
> >
> > It was n
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:16:33 +0100, Kern Sibbald said:
>
> On Friday 20 November 2009 14:44:54 Martin Simmons wrote:
> > It there a technical reason why the NextPool directive is part of the pool
> > at all?
>
> It was not really a technical reason, but David Boyes suggested doing it that
On Tuesday 24 November 2009 15:54:53 Jim Barber wrote:
> > Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > If the only reason is to prevent a deadlock then this override is not
> > necessary since Bacula (at some version, I think it was 2.4.0) will not
> > use the same volume for reading and writing.
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> Hello,
>
> If the only reason is to prevent a deadlock then this override is not
> necessary since Bacula (at some version, I think it was 2.4.0) will not
> use the same volume for reading and writing.
>
> If there is some other good reason, please remove the comment
>
> On Friday 20 November 2009 14:44:54 Martin Simmons wrote:
> > It there a technical reason why the NextPool directive is part of the
> pool
> > at all?
>
> It was not really a technical reason, but David Boyes suggested doing it
> that
> way, possibly because that is how TSM does it. At the t
On Sunday 22 November 2009 23:11:27 Phil Stracchino wrote:
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 November 2009 18:23:36 Phil Stracchino wrote:
> >> Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, I personally believe this
> >> would be a serious mistake, unless it is replaced with an alternate
> >> mec
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On Sunday 22 November 2009 18:23:36 Phil Stracchino wrote:
>> Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, I personally believe this
>> would be a serious mistake, unless it is replaced with an alternate
>> mechanism for accomplishing the same ends. Without Pool and Storage
>>
On Friday 20 November 2009 14:44:54 Martin Simmons wrote:
> It there a technical reason why the NextPool directive is part of the pool
> at all?
It was not really a technical reason, but David Boyes suggested doing it that
way, possibly because that is how TSM does it. At the time, I wasn't re
It there a technical reason why the NextPool directive is part of the pool at
all? When I first heard about migration and copy jobs, I expected to find
something like a TargetPool directive in the job definition, so that it can be
varied for each job.
Someone already had to hack around this with
Hello,
If the only reason is to prevent a deadlock then this override is not
necessary since Bacula (at some version, I think it was 2.4.0) will not
use the same volume for reading and writing.
If there is some other good reason, please remove the comments about
deadlock and resubmit, and I think
Item ?: Allow Schedule Resource to override NextPool
Date: 18 November 2009
Origin: Jim Barber. jim.bar...@ddihealth.com
Status: New request
What: Allow the Schedule resource to define a NextPool= statement
to override the NextPool statement of the pool defined in the job.
Why:
15 matches
Mail list logo
