On Wednesday 22 March 2006 11:11, Carlo Agrusti wrote:
> I have installed debian packages downloaded from sourceforge (Bacula
> 1.36.3-2), which have been packed by the same maintainer of
> 1.36.2-2Sarge1, and I have still another index table:
>
> +---++--+--+---
Hello,
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 10:36, Gavin Conway wrote:
> Hi Kern,
>
> I did notice the difference when looking at the two installs I have
> here. Here is the output from the two;
>
> Debian Sarge 3.1 Bacula 1.36.2 (installed from the debian stable tree)
>
> +---++
I have installed debian packages downloaded from sourceforge (Bacula
1.36.3-2), which have been packed by the same maintainer of
1.36.2-2Sarge1, and I have still another index table:
+---++--+--+-+---+-+--++--+
Hi Kern,
I did notice the difference when looking at the two installs I have
here. Here is the output from the two;
Debian Sarge 3.1 Bacula 1.36.2 (installed from the debian stable tree)
+---+++--+-+---+-+--+-
Hello Gavin,
I suspect that you might be experiencing some serious performance problems. A
more
appropriate set of indicies is probably something like what I have:
mysql> show indexes from File;
+---++--+--+-+---+-+--+
Barry,
This may be of some use;
mysql> show indexes from File;
+---+++--+-+---+-+--++--++-+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation
| Cardinality | Su
Hi All,
I am starting to notice performance problems on my bacula
setup. Some nights it backs up around 25G in 2 Hours, Last night it is still
running after 8 hours for the same 25G. Reading the manual told me to check the
indexes and I see that there are some set (5 of them) but they d
