Re: [Bacula-users] New to Bacula - emergency situation.

2011-07-06 Thread Jari Fredriksson
All the necessary changes to the configuration will not be done via bconsole, but by editing /etc/bacula/bacula-dir.conf, and the issuing a reload command in bconsole. -- The surest protection against temptation is cowardice. -- Mark Twain signature.asc Description: OpenPGP

Re: [Bacula-users] Why doesn't Bacula use the whole tape? [SOLVED]

2011-07-06 Thread Stefan Günther
HI, we had to add the parameters Maximum Block Size = 65536 Maximum Network Buffer Size = 65536 to the device definition in bacula-sd.conf: Device {   Name = Drive-1   Media Type = Ultrium-LTO3   Archive Device = /dev/st0   AutomaticMount = yes;   AlwaysOpen = yes;   RemovableMedia = yes;  

[Bacula-users] Fatal error: Network error with FD during Backup: ERR=Interrupted system call

2011-07-06 Thread Markus Schulz
hello, i have a strange error. Each try of a full backup aborts after an amount of time. The client, director and storage daemon are running on the same computer. Therefore any network/firewall issues can be excluded. The system was a debian/squeeze. any ideas? this was the log from last run:

[Bacula-users] Automatic Volume creation

2011-07-06 Thread Robert.Mortimer
Hi, I have Bacula running with an IBM TL3400. As the tapes are bar coded Bacula can read the library and add the tapes to it's catalogue. I can than move then to the backup pools. My issue is the tapes have not had a volume written to the front of the tape using the label command they fail to

Re: [Bacula-users] Automatic Volume creation

2011-07-06 Thread Jeremy Maes
Op 6/07/2011 10:17, Robert.Mortimer schreef: Hi, I have Bacula running with an IBM TL3400. As the tapes are bar coded Bacula can read the library and add the tapes to it's catalogue. I can than move then to the backup pools. My issue is the tapes have not had a volume written to the front of

Re: [Bacula-users] Fatal error: Network error with FD during Backup: ERR=Interrupted system call

2011-07-06 Thread Martin Simmons
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:06:02 +0200, Markus Schulz said: hello, i have a strange error. Each try of a full backup aborts after an amount of time. The client, director and storage daemon are running on the same computer. Therefore any network/firewall issues can be excluded. The system

Re: [Bacula-users] Web interface

2011-07-06 Thread Carlo Filippetto
Yes sorry!! I would like to say exactly webmin bacula module Thank's 2011/7/5 Mauro Colorio mauro.colo...@gmail.com I tried phpmyadmin, and webacula but I need something more powerfull... phpmyadmin isn't a bacula web interface.. webacula works great but fails on restore, I suggest to

Re: [Bacula-users] Web interface

2011-07-06 Thread Carlo Filippetto
Hi, you are right, but as you may now, not all the people are system administrator, so I need to let an easy interface for the dummies admins Any other suggestions? Thanks --- Carlo 2011/7/5 Rory Campbell-Lange r...@campbell-lange.net The best interface in my view is psql and bconsole.

[Bacula-users] Fwd: RE: Automatic Volume creation

2011-07-06 Thread Jeremy Maes
Op 6/07/2011 10:17, Robert.Mortimer schreef: Hi, I have Bacula running with an IBM TL3400. As the tapes are bar coded Bacula can read the library and add the tapes to it's catalogue. I can than move then to the backup pools. My issue is the tapes

Re: [Bacula-users] Web interface

2011-07-06 Thread Mauro Colorio
I would like to say exactly webmin bacula module what's wrong with webmin module? for non sysadmin user is enough, I think non admin needs just to restore a file if something goes wrong :) ciao Mauro -- All of the

[Bacula-users] Write spooled data to 2 volumes

2011-07-06 Thread Jan Behrend
Hi, I'd like to have a 2nd tape copy written to an offsite tapelibary which is accessible in the local SAN. For now I am doing my usual Backup jobs and after this copy these jobs to the offsite library. This takes forever because bacula needs to spool all data from the first backup volume again

[Bacula-users] Backing up only files with *foo* in the name?

2011-07-06 Thread dobbin
Hello there, we've got one particular server backing up to a slightly older debian server running bacula 2.44. There's way too much stuff on the server to backup but the only important files are ones with *foo* in the filename I want to backup every file in D:/media and all of it's

Re: [Bacula-users] Performance with many files

2011-07-06 Thread Phil Stracchino
On 07/06/11 08:04, Adrian Reyer wrote: Hi, I am using bacula for a bit more than a month now and the database gets slower and slower both for selecting stuff and for running backups as such. I am using a MySQL database, still myisam tables and I am considering switching to InnoDB tables or

Re: [Bacula-users] Performance options for single large (100TB) server backup?

2011-07-06 Thread Florian Heigl
Hi, Breaking the server into multiple file daemons sounds as broken as breaking the stuff amanda users had to do (break your filesystem into something that fits a tape). Saving multiple streams is something that has been proven as a solution for many years, and where that is still too slow NDMP

Re: [Bacula-users] Backing up only files with *foo* in the name?

2011-07-06 Thread Phil Stracchino
On 07/06/11 10:08, dobbin wrote: Hello there, we've got one particular server backing up to a slightly older debian server running bacula 2.44. There's way too much stuff on the server to backup but the only important files are ones with *foo* in the filename I want to backup every file

Re: [Bacula-users] Performance with many files

2011-07-06 Thread Adrian Reyer
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:09:56AM -0400, Phil Stracchino wrote: should I use for my tables? is MyISAM.[1] At this point, wherever possible, EVERYONE should be using InnoDB. I will, if the current backup ever finishes. For a start on MySQL 5.1 though (Debian squeeze). I am aware InnoDB has a

Re: [Bacula-users] Performance options for single large (100TB) server backup?

2011-07-06 Thread Steve Costaras
Found a solutino to why multi-volume was not working correctly (don't know what the problem was) but had to re-create the database and once I re-did that/recreated the tape pool now it's working with multi-jobs using the same tape. Go figure. As for your comment here with multi-streaming, YES

Re: [Bacula-users] Performance with many files

2011-07-06 Thread Phil Stracchino
On 07/06/11 10:41, Adrian Reyer wrote: On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:09:56AM -0400, Phil Stracchino wrote: should I use for my tables? is MyISAM.[1] At this point, wherever possible, EVERYONE should be using InnoDB. I will, if the current backup ever finishes. For a start on MySQL 5.1 though

[Bacula-users] Invalid Tape position - Marking tapes with error

2011-07-06 Thread James Woodward
Hello, I've tried searching around a bit but I can't seem to find an answer as to what might cause this problem. I have qutie a few tapes that have been marked in error due to Invalid Tape position. I've listed the Invalid tape position errors as well as detail about one of the affected

[Bacula-users] SPEED!

2011-07-06 Thread Jake Debord
I have a machine I back up that when done averages: Elapsed time: 41 mins 47 secs Priority: 1 FD Files Written: 6,948 SD Files Written: 6,948 FD Bytes Written: 14,587,852,350 (14.58 GB) SD Bytes Written: 14,589,273,339 (14.58 GB) Rate:

Re: [Bacula-users] SPEED!

2011-07-06 Thread J. Echter
Am 06.07.2011 18:31, schrieb Jake Debord: I have a machine I back up that when done averages: Elapsed time: 41 mins 47 secs Priority: 1 FD Files Written: 6,948 SD Files Written: 6,948 FD Bytes Written: 14,587,852,350 (14.58 GB) SD Bytes

Re: [Bacula-users] Performance options for single large (100TB) server backup?

2011-07-06 Thread Eric Bollengier
Hello, On 07/06/2011 04:20 PM, Florian Heigl wrote: Saving multiple streams is something that has been proven as a solution for many years, and where that is still too slow NDMP comes into place. (in case of ZFS NDMP is still at a unusable stage) 100TB is a lot, but I wonder if everyone

Re: [Bacula-users] SPEED!

2011-07-06 Thread John Drescher
2011/7/6 Jake Debord jake.deb...@gmail.com: I have a machine I back up that when done averages: Elapsed time:   41 mins 47 secs   Priority:   1   FD Files Written:   6,948   SD Files Written:   6,948   FD Bytes Written:   14,587,852,350 (14.58 GB)   SD Bytes

Re: [Bacula-users] SPEED!

2011-07-06 Thread Laurent HENRY (EHESS/CRI)
Le Mer 6 juillet 2011 18:43, John Drescher a écrit : 2011/7/6 Jake Debord jake.deb...@gmail.com: I have a machine I back up that when done averages: Elapsed time:   41 mins 47 secs   Priority:   1   FD Files Written:   6,948   SD Files Written:   6,948   FD Bytes

Re: [Bacula-users] SPEED!

2011-07-06 Thread Jake Debord
Yes, I use disk based file storage. It is a full backup but, I will turn gzip off and defrag it to see if I can improve the speed. Thanks for the advice and any additional advice is welcomed. On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:37 AM, J. Echter j.ech...@elektro-mayer-echter.de wrote: Am 06.07.2011

Re: [Bacula-users] Bacula-users Digest, Vol 63, Issue 4

2011-07-06 Thread Bacula-Dev
Hello, Maybe bacula-web can provide you what you need. This tool is current under hard development and a new beta version is comming soon. It's more a reporting and monitoring tool than an admin tool but it don't need that you to have system admin skills ;o) Best regards Hi, you are

Re: [Bacula-users] Performance options for single large (100TB) server backup?

2011-07-06 Thread Steve Costaras
Initial thoughts on this would be one of two ways (or both): All in the fileset resource: As a fileset option something like: StreamPerFS which would kick off a stream for every FS in the fileset. More of an 'automated' method to improve performance for those who don't want to manually

[Bacula-users] webacula issues

2011-07-06 Thread museikaze
Hi guys, Im kinda new here but I was wondering if anyone knows how to help me with a problem im having. I have installed bacula and that works fine for me, but when I tried to install webacula I get this error when I load the page. ERROR: There was a problem executing bconsole. See below.

Re: [Bacula-users] webacula issues

2011-07-06 Thread Dan Langille
On Jul 6, 2011, at 7:30 PM, museikaze wrote: Hi guys, Im kinda new here but I was wondering if anyone knows how to help me with a problem im having. I have installed bacula and that works fine for me, but when I tried to install webacula I get this error when I load the page. ERROR:

Re: [Bacula-users] SPEED!

2011-07-06 Thread Glen Barber
On 7/6/11 12:37 PM, J. Echter wrote: backup speed has nothing to do with regular backup speed. Can you explain exactly what this means? -- Glen Barber -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is

Re: [Bacula-users] SPEED!

2011-07-06 Thread Mike Ruskai
On 7/6/2011 12:31 PM, Jake Debord wrote: I have a machine I back up that when done averages: Elapsed time: 41 mins 47 secs Priority: 1 FD Files Written: 6,948 SD Files Written: 6,948 FD Bytes Written: 14,587,852,350 (14.58 GB) SD Bytes Written: