On Tuesday 06 June 2006 10:04, James Cort wrote:
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > Unfortunately, Bacula is sufficiently demanding that it often brings out
> > driver problems that don't show up using most Unix tape utilities, which
> > tend to be rather "simple" minded. They either simply write() or read().
> > Bacula uses quite a lot more features of the drive.
>
> That's very interesting.
>
> I've lost a certain degree of faith in the SCSI card I'm using; it's not
> particularly common so there's every possibility the driver hasn't had
> as much exercise as some of the more common SCSI card drivers.
>
> I'm wondering if it's worth replacing the SCSI card with something a
> little more commonplace - I'm thinking a reasonably sensible Adaptec
> card right now, maybe using the aic7xxx driver - has anyone had any
> experience of these?
I always use Adaptec cards from the beginning of the Bacula project and the
aic7xxx driver and have had very few problems. The kernel bug lists have
frequently reported all kinds of horrible problems with scsi drivers
(including aic7xxx), but fortunately in the last 6 years, I only had one
kernel that had a really broken scsi driver.
IMO, if you are using a non-standard scsi card, your chance of problems at
some point goes up rather astronomically judging from the kernel bug reports
and user reports I have seen (not at alll a scientific study ...).
--
Best regards,
Kern
(">
/\
V_V
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
