> Why would you ever want such a pool?  The only reason I can think of is if
> you have more pools than backup devices;

Exactly what you said. I have 20 pools and 2 backup devices with my 2
drive 24 slot autochanger.

> 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.
>
I would use XFS over ext3. ext3 is horribly inefficient with large files.

> 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?
>

Can you split your jobs up in some logical way so you can divide the
storage in more than 1 part?

John

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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