On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:52:05PM +, Martin Simmons wrote:
Do you know which volume is used? There seems to be some confusion between
incremental-0058 and incremental-0508.
Is that a common feature of other failures like this?
The problem is that this occurs only every once in a
Hi guys,
I seem to have major performance problem with the director/catalog when trying
restoration. Using MySQL, the catalog has about 200MB, mysql is using innodb
with large enough buffer pool to keep all data in memory. there is no iowait.
when I attempt to do a restore using bconsole I
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:38:04AM +, Antony Mayi wrote:
Hi guys,
I seem to have major performance problem with the director/catalog when
trying restoration. Using MySQL, the catalog has about 200MB, mysql is using
innodb with large enough buffer pool to keep all data in memory. there
I just ran into this. After a Google search, I turned up an article that says
the indices that used to make Bacula run faster now cause a performance problem
with recent versions of Bacula and recent versions of MySQL (it's on the Bacula
wiki, the address for which I don't have handy). I
thanks Uwe, good hint. I run the repair on all tables and restore works like a
charm now!
thanks a lot,
Antony.
From: Uwe Schuerkamp uwe.schuerk...@nionex.net
To: Antony Mayi antonym...@yahoo.com
Cc: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
I just ran into this. After a Google search, I turned up an article that
says the indices that used to make Bacula run faster now cause a performance
problem with recent versions of Bacula and recent versions of MySQL (it's on
the Bacula wiki, the address for which I don't have handy). I
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 01:10:59PM +, Antony Mayi wrote:
thanks Uwe, good hint. I run the repair on all tables and restore works like
a charm now!
thanks a lot,
Antony.
You're welcome, I've fallen into the same trap before ;)
Cheers, Uwe
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 08:24:07AM -0500, John Drescher wrote:
I just ran into this. After a Google search, I turned up an article that
says the indices that used to make Bacula run faster now cause a performance
problem with recent versions of Bacula and recent versions of MySQL (it's on
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Uwe Schuerkamp
uwe.schuerk...@nionex.net wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 08:24:07AM -0500, John Drescher wrote:
I just ran into this. After a Google search, I turned up an article that
says the indices that used to make Bacula run faster now cause a
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 08:44:06AM -0500, John Drescher wrote:
I did not mean file table indices (I am not sure about these - I use
postgresql with bacula). However I meant tuning the database
parameters to allow mysql server to use more memory. I have had to do
that for other mysql usage.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/14/2013 08:52 AM, Uwe Schuerkamp wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 08:44:06AM -0500, John Drescher wrote:
I did not mean file table indices (I am not sure about these - I
use postgresql with bacula). However I meant tuning the database
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/14/2013 08:59 AM, Novosielski, Ryan wrote:
On 01/14/2013 08:52 AM, Uwe Schuerkamp wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 08:44:06AM -0500, John Drescher wrote:
I did not mean file table indices (I am not sure about these -
I use postgresql with
hi@all,
hello I'm new on this list and I have a question.
Is it possible to create a complete backup from my windows-clients with
bacula? Therefore a disaster recovery so the complet host (OS+Data) can
be restored?
We use clients with winxp-pro (32bit) and win7-pro (64bit). The server
is
Le 2013-01-14 14:32, Uwe Schuerkamp a écrit :
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 08:24:07AM -0500, John Drescher wrote:
I just ran into this. After a Google search, I turned up an
article that
says the indices that used to make Bacula run faster now cause a
performance
problem with recent versions
Bacula 5.2.10, CentOS 5/6, x86_64.
Just a curiosity. I note that full backup performance across many systems
is typically in the 6-10 MB/sec range; I am using GZIP4 and the backups
are typically compute bound doing software compression (clients are Xeons
in the 3GHz range, and the SD is a 2GHz
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Steve Thompson s...@vgersoft.com wrote:
Bacula 5.2.10, CentOS 5/6, x86_64.
Just a curiosity. I note that full backup performance across many systems
is typically in the 6-10 MB/sec range; I am using GZIP4 and the backups
are typically compute bound doing
If you have both, which would be better to use?
Thanks in advance.
JBB
--
Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current
Hello,
2013/1/14 jba...@bayertechnologygroup.com
If you have both, which would be better to use?
Use readline and disable conio.
best regards
--
Radosław Korzeniewski
rados...@korzeniewski.net
--
Master Visual
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:45:55 +0100
Sven Gehr mailingli...@dreampixel.de wrote:
Is it possible to create a complete backup from my windows-clients
with bacula? Therefore a disaster recovery so the complet host (OS
+Data) can be restored?
We use clients with winxp-pro (32bit) and win7-pro
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, John Drescher wrote:
I would say this is a combination of filesystem performance ( remember
that when you backup there can be a lot of seeks that reduce
performance) and decompression performance. Decompression is less CPU
intensive than compression.
Ah yes, you're
Hello,
I'm relatively new to this, but here's my question. I also apologize, if
you see a duplicate email:
How do I compile a *static-bacula-fd* daemon with the GZIP functionality
(does --enable-client-only do this)? Or how can I fix the following warning?
Bacula Console reports successful
On 1/14/2013 10:44 AM, Steve Thompson wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, John Drescher wrote:
I would say this is a combination of filesystem performance ( remember
that when you backup there can be a lot of seeks that reduce
performance) and decompression performance. Decompression is less CPU
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 06:00:18PM -0500, Bryan Harris wrote:
Bacula community edition will continue, unix, linux, windows products?
I think he means Will Windows be supported?, or Will Windows continue?,
or something along those lines. Here is my understanding, feel free to
correct me if
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Adrian Reyer bacula-li...@lihas.de wrote:
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 06:00:18PM -0500, Bryan Harris wrote:
Bacula community edition will continue, unix, linux, windows products?
I think he means Will Windows be supported?, or Will Windows continue?,
or
24 matches
Mail list logo
