Kevin Keane wrote:
> Oh yes, that was me. Ultimately, it's a bug in bacula; it has some
> inconsistent default values: by default, the director tries to connect on
> IPv6 when the machine has an record listed. But the FD does not listen
> on IPv6 (in Linux, you can turn it on to make it wo
Oh yes, that was me. Ultimately, it's a bug in bacula; it has some inconsistent
default values: by default, the director tries to connect on IPv6 when the
machine has an record listed. But the FD does not listen on IPv6 (in
Linux, you can turn it on to make it work, in Windows, IPv6 is not
I've been diving into Bacula the past 2-3 weeks to come up with a backup
system here for some small server count but very large data store sizes
(30+TiB per server).
In the coarse of my testing I have noticed something and want to know if
it's by design (in which case it would be very wastef
> I have no problem with backups and restores and all commands on the server
> work
> correctly. But when executing bwx-console on Vista it's unable to connect to
> the
> director. I believe I've configured it correctly (identical to BAT) and
> opened
> the various firewalls. I wonder whether
I am running bacula 3.0.3, the server on fedora 12 (64-bit) and on Windows
Vista
a bacula 3.0.3 client.
I have no problem with backups and restores and all commands on the server work
correctly. But when executing bwx-console on Vista it's unable to connect to
the
director. I believe I've con
I have a disk-based backup setup that uses dated volumes which are used
for a 23-hour period then marked 'used', so that I can be certain a
particular day's backups are contained in a single file. They are of
course purged after their retention time expires, at which time they are
moved to the Scr
Hello,
The other day, Eric pointed out to me that some of the manuals that we have
posted in different languages are quite out of date -- in fact, the partial
French translation apparently dates from version 1.38.
As a consequence, starting with a few days ago with what is currently the
develo
Hi,
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010, Timo Neuvonen wrote:
> > 3.0.3a is mentioned here:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/bacula-de...@lists.sourceforge.net/msg05607.html
> >
>
> Hmm... it obviously fixes something restore-related.
Indeed. In our case, restored files were being incorrectly given the
"hidden
"Dan Langille" kirjoitti viestissä
news:4b40a38f.3090...@langille.org...
> Timo Neuvonen wrote:
>> I just noticed there are Winbacula 3.0.3a clients, dated 2009-12-15.
>> I didn't find any information what this version is... sounds like some
>> urgent fix to 3.0.3. It even has the same release not
Timo Neuvonen wrote:
> I just noticed there are Winbacula 3.0.3a clients, dated 2009-12-15.
> I didn't find any information what this version is... sounds like some
> urgent fix to 3.0.3. It even has the same release notes- file like 3.0.3,
> with no reference to a-suffix.
>
> AFAIK, Bacula does
I just noticed there are Winbacula 3.0.3a clients, dated 2009-12-15.
I didn't find any information what this version is... sounds like some
urgent fix to 3.0.3. It even has the same release notes- file like 3.0.3,
with no reference to a-suffix.
AFAIK, Bacula does not support FD that is newer tha
11 matches
Mail list logo
