On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Allan Black <Allan.Black AT btconnect DOT com> 
wrote:
> John Drescher wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:19 AM, ToMasz <nunatarsuaq AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>>> I've been using bacula 1.38.11 for some time and recently upgraded
>>> successfully one of my file daemons to ver. 2.4.4.
>>> Now I'm thinking about complete upgrade on all machines including
>>> director but am unsure about possible pitfalls.
>>> Will my config files still work? Or maybe newer versions use other
>>> database solutions (I'm using internal bacula base)?
>> Your config files will work on every machine except possibly the
>> director. Its been a very long time (2 years?) since I have used 1.38
>> so I am not very sure of the changes needed.
>
> I upgraded from 1.38.11 to 2.2.5, and then to 2.4.3, and I am sure I
> did not have to make any configuration changes because of the Bacula
> upgrade. I use both DLT and DAT drives and have an autochanger of each
> drive type. I also use multiple pools, and more than one client OS.
>
> So, unless you have something really complicated, I would not expect
> you to have to make any configuration changes because of the upgrade.
>
I was thinking of a few directives that were either changed or removed
from the bacula-dir.conf file.

>
> What you *will* have to do, though, is upgrade your database for the
> new version. The database format has changed, so you would do well to
> make a manual copy of the database files before you start, just in case
> you need to revert to the old version while you fix some problem with
> the new version.
>

Agreed. This is very important.

John

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users