Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Bacula\-users\]\s+bacula\s+1\.38\s+file\s+daemon\s+compatibility\s+with\s+latest\s+3\.0\s+Bacula\s+Server\s+Solution\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Bacula\-users\]\s+bacula\s+1\.38\s+file\s+daemon\s+compatibility\s+with\s+latest\s+3\.0\s+Bacula\s+Server\s+Solution\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. [Bacula-users] bacula 1.38 file daemon compatibility with latest 3.0 Bacula Server Solution (score: 1): Author: Michael Halfhill <mhalfhill AT ekn DOT com>; Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:11:24 -0400; Has anyone confirmed if there are any complications or issues with remote bacula 1.38 file daemon clients working with Bacula 3.0 Server solution? Michael G. Halfhill East Kentucky Network, LLC. Appa; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2009-08/msg00134.html (11,816 bytes)
2. Re: [Bacula-users] bacula 1.38 file daemon compatibility with latest 3.0 Bacula Server Solution (score: 1): Author: Marek Simon <marek.simon AT trustica DOT cz>; Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:10:16 +0200; I used combination 1.38 FD and 2.4.4 director + SD, and it works, except if I use the Runscript directive - the Filedaemon did not know it. I have no experience with bacula 3.0 director Marek Michael; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2009-08/msg00149.html (13,140 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]