Re: [Bacula-users] Difference Between "Archive" and "Read-Only" Volume Status?

[Kern S. <ke...@si...>]

On Tuesday 13 March 2007 21:57, Ryan Novosielski wrote:
> I could be wrong, but I don't believe either one is implemented. :-P Do
> I win? :)

Yes, you win.  However, there is a new Enable mode in 2.0.0, which has an 
Archive status, which, if I remember well, prevents pruning.

>
> =R
>
> Jason King wrote:
> > Not 100% sure, but archived volumes probably stay archived until their
> > rentention period is up, then they would go into recycle which would
> > then allow bacula to use them. Read-Only is set by the user and bacula
> > will never change that attribute.
> >
> > Mike Seda wrote:
> >> I have the same question:
> >>
> >> "Could someone tell me if there is a difference in the way that Bacula
> >> handles volumes with the status "Archive" and the status "Read-Only"?"
> >>
> >> Did this ever get answered?
> >>
> >> Neal Gamradt wrote:
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> Could someone tell me if there is a difference in the way that Bacula
> >>> handles volumes with the status "Archive" and the status "Read-Only"?
> >>> Does any data get removed from the database with "Archive"?  I have
> >>> some files I want to pertinently archive on a volume that I am going
> >>> to take out of rotation, but I don't want to remove them from the
> >>> database, that way I can restore quickly if I need to.
> >>>
> >>> Also, does "Disabled" remove the information for that volume from the
> >>> database?  Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> Running Redhat Enterprise 4.0 with Bacula 1.38.11 and a Superloader 3
> >>> with an S4 tape drive.
> >>>
> >>> Neal