On 2013-05-24 00:42, Radosław Korzeniewski wrote:

> No. This solution was first proposed by me in this thread with a mail
> from 3 May 2013 17:04. Then Kern (a week later) was suggested that it is
> a good solution too. It will require some kind of RAID or LVM for proper
> work. AFAIR You rejected this kind of setup:

I rejected it because it's not a "changer". You concatenate all your 
disks into one large "device" and write to it. That's fine, at another 
client I've a bacula setup that's been working that way perfectly well 
for years. In this particular case treating individual disks like tapes, 
incl. the ability to archive them, is the requirement.

Frankly, I fail to make any sense of all this: if you have your disks 
concatenated into a raid or lvm, why would you then list them in 
separate Device sections grouped into an Autochanger? You just use your 
raid as the one Device (its component disks are inaccessible 
individually anyway).

Dimitri


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt
New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service 
that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your
browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic
and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_may
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users