Bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] Upgrade path from 2.4.x to 5.0.x

2010-04-27 08:22:15
Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Upgrade path from 2.4.x to 5.0.x
From: Foo <bfoo33 AT yahoo.co DOT uk>
To: bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:15:35 +0200
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:06:43 +0200, Martin Simmons <martin AT lispworks DOT com>
wrote:

> I suggest checking your current db version by
> select * from version;

Version 10.

Is Bacula 2.4.4 dir/sd compatible with a newer database layout (11, 12,
whatever?) or do I need to update the dir/sd executables at the same time?

> and then running the appropriate scripts from the updatedb directory of  
> the source code (not the compiled packages) and then the one from 5.0.1  
> (which is not the updatedb directory).

I see some .in files which look like template scripts, I presume I need to
'make' before these are filled in?

-->8--

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:57:53 +0200, Matija Nalis <mnalis+bacula AT carnet DOT 
hr>
wrote:

>> Also, can I expect problems if I added some extra indexes for speed and
>> whatever tables/indexes were added by webacula?
>
> yes, you can expect problems :)
>
> For example,
> http://wiki.bacula.org/doku.php?id=faq#restore_takes_a_long_time_to_retrieve_sql_results_from_mysql_catalog
> http://wiki.bacula.org/doku.php?id=faq#jobs_with_accurate_filesets_take_forever_deprecated
> http://bugs.bacula.org/view.php?id=1472

Thanks, I'll see what I can remove. Can't access the last link though.

The indexes did help a lot with dbcheck though, without them it takes days
to complete instead of minutes, will this speed up in 3.x/5.x or has
dbcheck been updated, is it not necessary anymore, or is this something
that needs to be fixed in a future release?

I have the following indexes on File currently:

Non_unique                      Seq_in_index
|| Key_name                   | | | Column_name | Cardinality
|+----------------------------+ | +-------------+------------
0| PRIMARY                    | 1 | FileId      |     6387461
1| JobId                      | 1 | JobId       |        2750
1| JobId                      | 2 | PathId      |      638746
1| JobId                      | 3 | FilenameId  |     6387461
1| File_JobId_idx             | 1 | JobId       |        2750
1| File_PathId_idx            | 1 | PathId      |      206047
1| File_FilenameId_idx        | 1 | FilenameId  |      912494
1| File_FilenameId_PathId_idx | 1 | FilenameId  |      912494
1| File_FilenameId_PathId_idx | 2 | PathId      |     2129153

Collation are all A, Sub_part, Packed are all NULL, Null and Comment are
all empty, Index_type is all BTREE

Which of these can be deleted exactly? (and how, I'm not a DBA :)

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