> 
> Quote:
> All the machine backups go into one pool. It is counterproductive to use 
> individual pools for machines as that means tapes aren't filled 
> regularly and you're having to either keep lots in the changer or have 
> to change tapes constantly. 
> 
> 
> yes but, as I said in my first post, I'm not using tapes, all my backups are 
> done onto a sizeable disk array. Does that still mean multiple pools are a 
> problem?
> 
> 
> 
 
Multiple pools were not the problem. I believe the limitation on how 
many volumes in each pool was. I believe that combined with changing 
configuration in bacula-dir.conf without applying the change in 
bconsole. Remember that making changes in the pool definition in 
bacula-dir.conf does not change already existing volumes. 

John [/quote]

but I haven't changed the pool definition, the only things I ever change in the 
bacula-dir.conf are the schedule and the directories that are being backed up.

Here's the pool definition we use for each server

Pool {
  Name = servername
  Pool Type = Backup
  Recycle = yes
  AutoPrune = yes
  Volume Retention = 65 days
  Maximum Volumes = 65
  UseVolumeOnce = yes
  LabelFormat = "servername-day-"
}

That's never changed[/quote]

+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by tibus.support AT gmail DOT com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to abuse AT backupcentral DOT com.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
and start using them to simplify application deployment and
accelerate your shift to cloud computing.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users