I know that no informations are stored in database with bcopy. That's what I
want (to prevent database size growing too much).
Are you absolutely sure it is worth a such complications? A single backup file takes about 400B of database storage (including indexes). You can buy a 3TB HDD for about 100USD. A one million files in bacula catalog will cost about 1,21 cent in storage space. Compare it to your earnings. :)
These informations are
already stored in database for tape 1 (which is the original tape).
If you want to use a "cloned" tape2 with Bacula then you need to bscan it to the catalog.
Using
bcopy to copy tape 1 to tape 2 (keeping volume name) would permit to have
exactly same database informations for tape 1 & 2 (and permit off-site
storage for tape 2).
No. The bcopy is not making a byte by byte copy of the original tape (the Unix/Linux utility dd makes this). In my opinion it is not guaranteed that the tapes will be the same. To use a "cloned" tape you should bscan it ti the catalog.
I used this functionality with 5.0.12 version and it worked.
You lucky man. :)
For information I can not use bextract because datas are encrypted with
bacula.
The catalog has a lot of metadata information about the backup and volume, i.e. a job table, file table, media table and the most important jobmedia table where Bacula stores volume "physical" mappings of the backup. A cloned tape could have a different jobmedia mappings then an original one.
