Re: [Bacula-users] Pool for Linux vs Pool for Windows (linux best perfomance) why?

2019-02-21 Thread Sven Hartge
On 21.02.19 01:09, Jose Alberto wrote: > The Pool A where only Linux or Unix are stored. arrives cap 6TB to be > FULL, this seems fine. But the Pool B where only WindowsServers is saved > only gets to 2TB to get FULL what I see is not normal. Maybe your Windows systems don't deliver the data

Re: [Bacula-users] Pool for Linux vs Pool for Windows (linux best perfomance) why?

2019-02-20 Thread Jose Alberto
The Pool A where only Linux or Unix are stored. arrives cap 6TB to be FULL, this seems fine. But the Pool B where only WindowsServers is saved only gets to 2TB to get FULL what I see is not normal. I should not use compression because I'm using Tape Library. On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 2:56 AM

[Bacula-users] Pool for Linux vs Pool for Windows (linux best perfomance) why?

2019-02-18 Thread Jose Alberto
Hi. I have 2 POOL with LTO6. With pool A, all Client Linux/Unix (Debian, Centos, AIX). The lto6 full 6TB. With pool B , all cliente WindowsServers (2008-2012). BUT the lto6 2TB full. No use Compress in FileSet. that it may be that the poolA fills up the lto6? Thanks. Sorry for my