>> You do not understand idea of scratch pool. this pool is literally  
>> speaking
>> some kind of trash for volumes that were recycled. you cannot use  
>> volumes in
>> scratch pool. they are grabbed from it and placed to the pool which  
>> needs new
>> media so adding new storage for scratch pool is senseless for me.
>>
>> but I may be wrong, because I use bacula quite shortly.
>>
>
> Sounds correct to me.
>
> John

Why would you ever want such a pool?  The only reason I can think of  
is if you have more pools than backup devices; but that's the opposite  
of the problem I'm trying to solve.  I have more backup devices than  
pools.  In some sense, I want to have multiple devices within the same  
pool.  Ideally, I'd like to have one of those devices in multiple  
pools.  I want the volumes and not the devices bound to the pool.   
Each pool could then tag any volumes it uses with the correct pool  
label and return them to scratch when they expire.  That's that I was  
hoping for when I read the documentation for the scratch pool, though  
that interpretation is apparently incorrect.

The basic problem for me is that I've hit the 8 TB file system size  
limit with ext3, and I don't have ext4 available to me yet.  With tape  
libraries, you can keep adding more tapes to increase the size of your  
pool.  With disk-based backups, once you've hit that 8 TB limit with  
ext3, you can't.  So if that's the problem I'm trying to solve, what  
are my options with Bacula?

Thanks,

James

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users