On Wednesday 13 September 2006 21:46, Jo Rhett wrote: > On Sep 13, 2006, at 12:11 PM, Kern Sibbald wrote: > > I agree that for the Volume Use Duration, the time should not be > > the End time. > > Though it is an interesting idea, I'm not convinced the Scheduled > > time would > > be correct since there can be a big difference between the > > scheduled time and > > the Start time, and after all, the name is "Use Duration" (i.e. from > > beginning of writing until now). > > > > In fact, for a Volume, it seems to me that the Start time should > > (and probably > > is) the FirstWritten time for the Volume. > > Okay, that rhymes with what I am observing. Your suggestion about > end time didn't make sense to me, and I was building evidence to > argue that it wasn't true when I saw this reply :-)
I thought you were talking about pruning based on Job/File retention periods rather than using Volume retention periods. > > So right now the "Volume Use" start time is set by the start time of > the first job stored on it. I haven't looked at the code, but I believe it is based on the FirstWritten which is the time (if I am not mistaken) when the Volume first had data written to it (i.e. just labeling it doesn't count). > However, I would like to argue that "Use > Duration" should be the time the volume is in use, yes? > > So if I start a backup at midnight on Sunday and it turns out that a > recycle-able volume wasn't available, the job will complain and wait. > I return on Tuesday and mount the appropriate volume, the job which > started at Sunday 00:00 but doesn't write it's first byte until > Tuesday 09:15 will store the volume start time as midnight Sunday. No, I don't believe that is correct. The FirstWritten should be the time the first non-label byte is written to the Volume. The whole process is rather complicated though. > > If Volume Use Duration is 24h, then the very next backup job will > need a brand new volume. > > And if that second job was Scheduled for Monday, we'll do this trick > all over again won't we? > > So I guess I'm arguing that this needs to be changed in 1.39 (if > possible) to store the first time the Volume was used, not the Start > Time of the first job on the volume. As far as I know the time for Volume recycling based on the Use time is as I stated above -- FirstWritten. > > Since nobody else has noticed this before it's probably not worth > backporting a fix, but I think this problem is important enough to be > included in 1.39 if you're willing to make a fix. If not, I could > take a poke (but I'd lose a lot of time learning that part of the code) In that case, consider yourself as being poked to at least clearly point out the algorithm error (in 30 words or less) and show *exactly* where it is going wrong in the code. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
