Hello Alan, Please submit the information below to a bug report. That way it will not be lost, and in this case, it isn't quite a bug, but a design flaw that should be corrected.
Best regards, Kern On Friday 19 January 2007 14:21, Alan Brown wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Kern Sibbald wrote: > > > Given that this doesn't seem to be creating enormous problems > > I had noticed it, but hadn't been looking closely enough to file a > detailed report. > > Kern, can you please revisit the definition of "failed" job upgrading? > With large filesets there is a distinct possibility that a full backup may > stil be running when an incremental is scheduled. > > If concurrency is enabled, but max concurrency for any single Jobname set > to 1, Bacula has been deciding the backup job in progress had failed and > would upgrade the incremental to full before queuing it. This can and does > result in an endless sucession of full backups - highly undesirable and > can chew up all available tape in a very short period of time. > > Ideally: > > 1: Only do the test at the time the job actually starts running, > not when it's added to the director queue > > and > > 2: Don't define a running job as "failed" for the purposes of testing to > see if an upgrade is required. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
