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:
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
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
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
Thanks for your reply Dan. By next release, are you referring to 1.4.x?
Also, is on-disk data format going to be changed in 1.4.x?
According to
http://landonf.bikemonkey.org/code/bacula/Configuring_Bacula_Encryption.20060305184424.26351.sandbox.html,
he provides the following warning when using
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.
--
Mathew Brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - A
I do not know if this idea has been mentioned before,
or whether it has any merit, but for backups done
to disk, one could first install an encrypted file system
such as gbde and geli for FreeBSD. It seems like another
case of flexibility and functionality through modularity.
On 31/10/06, Dan
