[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bacula-devel] [Bacula-users] Proplem upgrading from 1.38 to 2.2


Well upgrading from 1.38 to 2.2 is a non-trivial exercise since the database 
was upgraded several times between the two versions, and unless you first 
upgraded to Bacula 2.0, then did a second update to 2.2, I am not sure that 
the Debian upgrade will get everything right -- I imagine that is why you did 
it from source, and if your Bacula is running, then it looks like things went 
more or less OK.

Yes, if you want to turn batch insert off, you either have to run ./configure 
with the appropriate options (the preferred way), or you must comment the 
#define out.  Commenting out the #define is the way the autoconf system 
works -- it is nothing Bacula specific.

Concerning your problems when running Batch insert enabled, I suspect that you 
have a bad build or a bad version the MySQL libraries.  For batch insert to 
work, Bacula needs the thread safe version of the MySQL development libraries 
(mysql-xxx_r.so) -- if they are not there, normally, it should not build, but 
since I don't have the details of your build, I cannot say for sure.

I can assure you that Batch insert does work -- it is enabled by default, and 
we have had very few complaints about it -- most of the have to do with an 
inadequate MySQL/PostgreSQL configuration (i.e. not tuned to have sufficient 
memory resources).  I believe these points are mentioned in the manual, and 
possibly the release notes, but I have to say that if I were personally 
upgrading from 1.38 to 2.2, I would probably have missed them ...

If you either send me an attachment with your "comments" or point me to an 
exact link to the thread, we'll at least take a quick look at it for anything 
that might stand out.  Sorry, I no longer have the time to search for such 
things :-(   I think Eric might be interested in this too since batch insert 
is mostly his baby :-)

See a couple notes below ...

On Saturday 17 May 2008 07:06:34 Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> >> I running bacula server on a Debian Etch.
> >>
> >> I upgraded via www.backports.org and now...
> >
> > Is it normal, that MySQL runs at 100% processor "hours"
> > after a backup? Maybe 1st time after an upgrade from
> > 1.38?
> >
> > Image: http://www.localnet.fi/jarif/images/bacula_100.png
> Everything seems to work now. I had to download latest bacula source
> tarball, edit src/config.h so that
>     #define HAVE_BATCH_FILE_INSERT 1
> comes
>     /* #define HAVE_BATCH_FILE_INSERT 1 */
> (You have to comment it out, defining it as 0 does not work!)
> And voila! My MySQL is happy and back up works.
> HAVE_BATCH_FILE_INSERT seems to be so wrong in so many levels, that it's
> best to disable.
> My setup:
> # mysql --version
> mysql  Ver 14.12 Distrib 5.0.51a, for debian-linux-gnu (i486) using
> readline 5.2

My setup here is:

$ mysql --version
mysql  Ver 14.12 Distrib 5.0.51a, for debian-linux-gnu (i486) using readline 

with Batch insert on.  Naturally, I always build from source :-)

> # uname -a
> Linux wellington 2.6.22-4-686 #1 SMP Tue Feb 12 16:29:32 UTC 2008 i686
> GNU/Linux
> # df -h
> Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/hda3             298G   93G  206G  32% /
> tmpfs                 125M     0  125M   0% /lib/init/rw
> udev                   10M   56K   10M   1% /dev
> tmpfs                 125M     0  125M   0% /dev/shm
> /dev/hda1              30M   14M   15M  48% /boot
> # free -m
>              total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
> Mem:           249        215         34          0         49         45
> -/+ buffers/cache:        119        129
> Swap:          243         44        198
> All went wrong when I upgraded from Bacula 1.38 to 2.2.8
> (www.backports.org), but now that I did it with source and that "unsetting"
> of the BATCH handling, my system works.
> You can find some more comments (although not all constructive) on that
> BATCH SQL handling in this thread of mine, have a look or not.
> I have noticed positive things in Bacula in this upgrade as well. My tape
> sometimes mounts as READ-ONLY, and bacula used to fail jobs when that
> happened. 2.2.x seems to handle that, altought not perfecktly. It seems to
> mount the tape, and says "Thank You" but nothing happens. Unmounting and
> remounting after "mt status" it's happy and the backup continues. That is
> much better than in 1.38 where a 10 tape backup failed because #11 tape was
> read only!!
> Thanks for all participants for this great software!

Thanks for the thanks -- especially after the problems you had.

Best regards,


> Regards, jarif (Happy camper now!)

This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft 
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. 
Bacula-devel mailing list

This mailing list archive is a service of Copilotco.