On 2013-05-24 00:42, Radosław Korzeniewski wrote: > No. This solution was first proposed by me in this thread with a mail > from 3 May 2013 17:04. Then Kern (a week later) was suggested that it is > a good solution too. It will require some kind of RAID or LVM for proper > work. AFAIR You rejected this kind of setup:
I rejected it because it's not a "changer". You concatenate all your disks into one large "device" and write to it. That's fine, at another client I've a bacula setup that's been working that way perfectly well for years. In this particular case treating individual disks like tapes, incl. the ability to archive them, is the requirement. Frankly, I fail to make any sense of all this: if you have your disks concatenated into a raid or lvm, why would you then list them in separate Device sections grouped into an Autochanger? You just use your raid as the one Device (its component disks are inaccessible individually anyway). Dimitri ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_may _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
