> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 04:34:52 -0700 (PDT), cby said:
>
> Jesper
>
>
> Jesper Krogh wrote:
> >
> >> I fired up bextract (standard bacula restore is not appropriate in this
> >> case) which restored the first occurrence of the file as expected.
> >> However,
> >> instead of halting after r
Jesper
Jesper Krogh wrote:
>
>> I fired up bextract (standard bacula restore is not appropriate in this
>> case) which restored the first occurrence of the file as expected.
>> However,
>> instead of halting after restoring the file, bextract continued to the
>> end
>> of the tape and found a
> I fired up bextract (standard bacula restore is not appropriate in this
> case) which restored the first occurrence of the file as expected. However,
> instead of halting after restoring the file, bextract continued to the end
> of the tape and found a second occurrence with the same filename wh
Martin
Thanks for the pointer. Looks like it's the way to go.
cby
Martin Simmons wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:40:33 -0700 (PDT), cby said:
>>
>> Running bacula on Centos 5.2 I have a tape volume which has more than one
>> occurrence of the same filename as a result of appending to
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:40:33 -0700 (PDT), cby said:
>
> Running bacula on Centos 5.2 I have a tape volume which has more than one
> occurrence of the same filename as a result of appending to tape. I needed
> to restore the first file.
>
> I fired up bextract (standard bacula restore is n
Hi
Running bacula on Centos 5.2 I have a tape volume which has more than one
occurrence of the same filename as a result of appending to tape. I needed
to restore the first file.
I fired up bextract (standard bacula restore is not appropriate in this
case) which restored the first occurrence of
