Silver Salonen wrote:
> On Thursday 25 June 2009 19:41:10 John Drescher wrote:
>>>> There is no such limit. If you want more than one pool to write
>>>> concurrently have more than 1 storage device. With disks you can have
>>>> as many as you want. They can all point to the same physical storage
>>>> location.
>>> I meant the configuration limit - that I can't configure one device to 
> accept
>>> multiple jobs concurrently.
>>>
>> I do this every single day at home. 5 jobs concurrently write to the
>> same exact volume.
> 
> My original claim was made in the context of disk-based backups (ie. multiple 
> pools as I explained in the same message). Using the same exact volume (or 
> pool) with disk-based backup-system is quite a big limitation to my mind. 

Umm, a Volume is not a pool. A pool is a collection of volumes.

I suspect you have a different idea of what a "backup system" consists 
of, as per your GFS post.

The technology doesn't define the definition of a backup system. So it 
doesn't matter whether you use tapes, hard disks, floppies, CDs/DVDs, 
optical media or whatever. It is how the media is stored and handled 
that makes it such.

The problem is that we are currently enjoying a period of relatively 
cheap (and nasty) hard disks and there are a lot of people suffering 
from "RAID Marketing" who now think keeping a copy on another hard disk, 
or two, somewhere is somehow a backup system.

Basically, if you want to a proper backup system, it  involves buying 
adequate media(hard disks) of SIZE** and number.


** I mentione size because my part backups could fit onto a DC1000 (aka 
1Gb tape), whereas the full of all clients take 160Gb. So it is 
ludicrous that the part backups are being dumped to tapes up to 40Gb in 
size.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users