I can't speak for this upgrade, but upgrading from 1.36.x to 1.38.x was relatively painless. Seeing as how the release and your target deployment dates are so close (and it will definitely matter how many hosts you have, since you'd need to upgrade them all -- a few is no big deal, and even moreso if you have binary packages), you might want to wait.
However, I /would/ recommend setting up Bacula 1.39.x on a machine someplace if you can scare one up. You could go through the practice of setting up the machine and even configure your schedules and encryption, just using File volumes. It would be good to see that the new version doesn't have any bugs that will hit your organization. I'm doing the same (I have 1.39.26 on a machine, just haven't had much time to test). Mathew Brown wrote: > Thanks a lot for your feedback Kern and Ryan. I guess I'll just either > use the latest version and not use encryption (since I'm deploying it in > a production env. or see if we can wait till mid-Dec. before deploying). > > Kern Sibbald wrote: >> On Friday 10 November 2006 16:43, Ryan Novosielski wrote: >>> Kern Sibbald wrote: >>>> On Tuesday 31 October 2006 12:58, Mathew Brown wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> I'd read several times that the FD encryption feature was not yet >>>>> stable but this was several months ago. Would you now consider it >>>>> stable enough for use in production environments? Thanks for your >>>>> help. >>>> It is ready for testing (BETA released), but not recommended for >> production >>>> use until it is officially released (unless you are an experienced Bacula >>>> user who knows how to cover his bases and can deal with bugs ...). >>> One reason not to use encryption for other-than-testing purposes is the >>> chance that, prior to release, the encryption format may change. This, >>> in fact, happened just this week. This means that you're either in the >>> situation of losing your backed up data or badgering the developers to >>> include a workaround in the code (extra work for them). Either way, not >>> a place I'd like to be. Seems like the BETA releases are coming along >>> pretty well though, so it might not be all that long... >> Well, I wouldn't like to stress these kinds of problems too much as I would >> prefer not to discourage people from beta testing. The change of the data >> format was a very unusual event and Landon very graciously offered to >> maintain backward compatibility. If it were not for beta testing, this >> problem would have been uncovered in production ... >> >> Concerning the schedule: I had intended to release the production version in >> mid-November, but given the encryption problem, and what looks like a bug in >> Migration of jobs that span volumes, the release will probably be delayed >> until mid-December to allow proper testing. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
