On Wednesday 24 February 2010 17:03:58 Josh Fisher wrote:
> On 2/24/2010 9:25 AM, Silver Salonen wrote:
> > It's like assuming that the "ultimate" backup-devices are tapes. And as I
> > don't think that way, it's so annoying these design decisions rely on
> > somebody's (emotional/historical) opinion.
> >    
> 
> The ultimate is a stream of bytes that makes up a Bacula volume. In this 
> way, a bacula volume is not media dependent, in that it doesn't matter 
> whether that volume is on tape, disk file, DVD, FIFO, etc. The design 
> decision separates backup function from I/O details.

The question was about whether and when to allow multiple volumes to be 
written on the same device concurrently. You were talking about what?

> > What's the use of treating all the devices the same way anyway? Ease of
> > programming? Even though it makes this part of the whole project so rigid?
> >    
> 
> Bacula is following the Unix paradigm of "everything is a file", which 
> is to separate functionality from i/o details. Not everyone agrees, 
> perhaps, but it is a time tested method that has proven to work and is 
> trusted. Trust is of primary importance for any backup system.

If volumes were files, there wouldn't be any need to limit them for devices 
which would be directories in that context.

--
Silver

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users