Hi,
I was wondering if there was any information about the performance
difference between running Bacula with a Postgres database vs an
SQLite database. I don't have any other need for a Postgres server,
so if I can get Bacula to perform as well with SQLite as it does with
Postgres, then I'd pref
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if there was any information about the performance
> difference between running Bacula with a Postgres database vs an
> SQLite database. I don't have any other need for a Postgres server,
> so if I can get Bacula to perform as well with SQLite as it does with
> Postgres,
> If you are backing up one machine with a small number of files then sqlite
> might be okay, but otherwise you'll probably find it will be a performance
> bottleneck for anything bigger.
>
> I recommend you go with postgresql (or mysql).
I've used MySQL in the past, and Bacula is just apparently
On Wed 01 May 2013 10:40:51 am Tim Gustafson wrote:
> > If you are backing up one machine with a small number of files then
> > sqlite might be okay, but otherwise you'll probably find it will be a
> > performance bottleneck for anything bigger.
> >
> > I recommend you go with postgresql (or mysql
On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 08:40:51AM -0700, Tim Gustafson wrote:
> I've used MySQL in the past, and Bacula is just apparently not
> optimized for it (or vice-versa, I'm not sure which). We run a fairly
> beefy MySQL server and we have hundreds of apps and web sites that all
> use that server and all
