On 7/10/2011 11:14 AM, Mike Hobbs wrote:
> On 6/29/2011 5:05 PM, Josh Fisher wrote:
>> By default, Bacula will select a volume that is already in a drive in
>> preference to a volume not in a drive. For concurrent jobs writing to
>> the same pool, this means they will always select the same volume. Thus
>> if you set MaximumConcurrentJobs=1 in the SD Device, then it will not be
>> possible to run concurrent jobs that write to the same pool, because the
>> concurrent jobs will select the same volume, which can only be written
>> to by one job at a time, forcing them to be serialized. To get around
>> the default behavior, set PreferMountedVolumes=no in the Job definition
>> of the jobs that will both run concurrently AND write to the same pool.
>> This will cause the opposite behavior. Bacula will prefer selecting a
>> volume that is NOT already in use in a drive, effectively meaning it
>> will select a volume that is not already in use, loading it into another
>> drive if necessary. This way, jobs writing to the same pool can run
>> concurrently, each writing to a different volume, ensuring that volume
>> data is not interleaved.
>
> I've had concurrent backups working fine for the past few days, this
> morning I login to check my server and I noticed that bacula/vchanger
> is only using 2 of my 4 virtual drives. I don't understand why, could
> you point me in the right direction to find out why this is?
Did any of the jobs that ran just after those two write to the same
volume? What was the status (from 'status dir' command) of the jobs that
were not running when only two jobs were running?
>
> Also, I was wondering if you could explain to me scheduling/priority.
> I just assumed that bacula ran jobs in the order they were added.. But
> I have noticed this is not the case, bacula seems to add jobs to the
> scheduler and then it seems to just pick random jobs in the queue to
> run. The ideal situation that I would like to see, I would like my
> incrementals to have a higher priority that my full backups, and I
> would like my restore jobs to have a higher priority than my
> incrementals. Right now I am using only one JobsDef so all my jobs are
> running with a priority of 10, I changed my Restores job to have a
> priority of 9, I also set Allow Mixed Priority = yes in all my jobs,
> but my restore jobs are not being run first, in fact as I stated
> above, I can't seem to figure out how bacula is deciding which jobs to
> run first and why. To me it seems like the priority line doesn't
> work, or I am configuring it wrong.
My understanding is that if AllowMixedPriority=yes, then the higher
priority job should run before any other queued lower priority jobs.
Although it will not preempt already running jobs, it should start as
soon as one of the already running jobs finishes. If, when one of the
already running jobs finishes, it runs a lower priority job ahead of the
queued high priority job, then that sounds like a bug in the Bacula
scheduler. It shouldn't run a queued lower priority job ahead of a
queued high priority job if AllowMixedPriority=yes. At least, that is my
understanding.
>
>
> Thank you!
>
> mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
|
