Bob Hetzel wrote:
> 1) Bacula is indeed able to seek within a tape.  If you're having trouble 
> with this functionality you need to look at the storage daemon options at

Thanks Bob, I had misinterpreted something I read earlier.
> 
> 2) If you pick a file that's on one of the other 9 tapes in your example it 
> should be fine.  The big problem will be if you need files on that bad 
> tape.  In that case you won't be able to get it.  So here's an example...
> Day one, full backup winds up using 9 full tapes and part of a 10th tape. 
> Day two, that 10th tape is appended to, but then breaks.  In this case, 
> you'll probably be able to restore anything except the files on that last 
> tape.  I believe bacula restores the files in the order they were written, 
> so any kind of restore you do that invovles tape 9 and tape 10 will get all 
> the tape 9 stuff just fine but then you'll need to cancel it because you 
> won't be able to give it tape 10.  However, the tape 9 files will already 
> be written and canceling the restore does not delete them.

Continuing the above example, if tape 6 was damaged, I'd be able to 
recover tapes 7 to 10?

Also my original intent in posing the "10 LTO4 tape" example, was 
whether or not Bacula needed to read all previous tapes in a multi 
archive set, in order to restore files residing on a given tape.

It would appear that this is not the case and it would go directly to 
the tape the files are stored on.

Regards,

Richard

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return on Information:
Google Enterprise Search pays you back
Get the facts.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users