Hi Daniel Please, read the release notes about bacula and take your conclusions! http://blog.bacula.org/category/releases/
Best Regards Wanderlei 2015-12-24 15:17 GMT-02:00 Bryn Hughes <li...@nashira.ca>: > On 2015-12-24 07:34 AM, Daniel Bareiro wrote: > > Hi Wanderlei and Greg. > > > > On 23/12/15 15:34, Greg Woods wrote: > > > >>> am thinking of using Debian Jessie which includes Bacula 5.2.6 in > its > >>> repository for director and storage daemon. But I remember a few > cases > >>> where I have experienced incompatibilities if the client versions > are > >>> far from the server version. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. > >> The requirement is FD <= (SD == DIR). The storage daemon and director > >> must be the same version, and must be newer than or the same as any > >> file daemons of any of the clients. I do use a 7.0.5 director and > >> storage daemon (compiled from source on Debian Jessie in the SD case) > >> with some clients that have 5.2.6 file daemons and that works just fine. > > Thanks for your answers and for the considerations mentioned about the > > versions. > > > > Greg, you mention having compiled the SD on Jessie, but I guess you've > > also compiled the Director, right? Since both must have the same > > version. Though I suppose that the Director may also be on another host > > that includes Bacula 7.0.5 in its repositories. > > > > About using Jessie, is it worth compile the Director and SD? That is, > > improvements regarding the versions provided by Jessie (5.2.6) make a > > substantial difference? What improvements have you noticed? > > > > My idea is to use Jessie for Director and storage daemon. Among the > > client hosts I've Squeeze LTS, CentOS 5.10, Ubuntu and Microsoft Windows > > server (2008R2 SP1 server edition and 2003R2 SP2 standard edition). > > > > From what I was looking for Squeeze, the latest version is on Backports > > (5.2.6) because the version on the squeeze-lts repository is even older > > (5.0.2). I think the Ubuntu version of Bacula is the same as on Debian > > Squeeze. Moreover, I think CentOS does not include Bacula in their > > repositories (at least in the official repositories, according I was > > watching). So maybe in this case the compilation is the only alternative. > > > > Have you found any problem using some version of File Daemon for Windows > > (especially in versions of Windows such as those mentioned above)? > > > > Thanks again for your replies. > > > > Best regards, > > Daniel > > > > I too am running a 7.0.5 director and storage daemon with mostly 5.2.6 > clients. > > Compiling the 7.x binaries is simple enough on a Debian/Ubuntu box to > make it well worth it. I haven't seen any particular reason to worry > about the file daemon (clients) though, they appear to work fine with > the 5.x binaries as shipped. However on the director/storage side > there's been more than a few bugs squashed between 5.2 and 7.0.5! > > Bryn > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bacula-users mailing list > Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
