On 4/9/2014 7:46 AM, Ulrich Leodolter wrote: > Hello, > > i am testing one the new bacula 7.x features: > > *Migration/Copy/VirtualFull Performance Enhancements* > > The Bacula Storage daemon now permits multiple jobs to simultaneously read > the same disk Volume, > which gives substantial performance enhancements when running Migration, > Copy, or VirtualFull jobs > that read disk Volumes. Our testing shows that when running multiple > simultaneous jobs, > the jobs can finish up to ten times faster with this version of Bacula. > This is built-in to the Storage daemon, so it happens automatically and > transparently . > > > i our setup we have 2 CopyDiskToTape which go into different pools on Tape > storage. > our storage is a 2-drive autochanger device. > > before the copy jobs are started, each drive has mounted a volume of the > destination pools. > > the problem is that both copy jobs only look at drive index 0 > and premounted volumes are always swapped (mounted/unmounted) at drive 0. > > > we have a second bacula installation running 5.2.13 > which has more or less the same setup and hardware. > on this installation parallel copy jobs runs can run without > swapping volumes on autochanger drive 0. > to overcome the exclusive read-lock limitation in this bacula version > we have defined two file storage devices which point to the > same location. our sql selects the copy jobs in opposite order > for the two jobs, so we can minimize the number of conflicts > when one file volume is already locked. > > > my question: > > has there something changed in bacula 7.x how bacula determines > if a volume is already mounted for an autochanger device ? > > why does bacula not use a premounted volume at drive index 1 ?
Are you sure that you do not have PreferMountedVolumes=no for either job? What happens when you run only the job that should use the volume in drive 1? Does it still select drive 0 even when it is the only job? If PreferMountedVolumes=yes (the default) and it still selects drive 0 even when the only job running, then I think that is a bug. Also, have you tried staggering the start times? When they start simultaneously drive 0 has not yet been selected for either job so both may see it as available. With staggered start times the last job to start should see that drive 0 is already assigned and so select drive 1 because it is not already assigned. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list Bacula-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
