On Wednesday 07 November 2007 04:12, John Jorgensen wrote: > >>>>> "dboyes" == David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > dboyes> I agree with you. It's dumb to do an incremental > dboyes> followed immediately by a full backup if they're > dboyes> going to dump the same data in roughly the same > dboyes> timeframe. > > What if the incremental and full backups are to different media? > > My practice is to have separate Incremental and Full pools, and > to run the daily Incremental even on Full Backup day, so that if > there is a media error on the Full tape, I still have a > reasonable hope of restoring everything to the state of that day, > using the combination of the previous Full tape, and the > intervening Incrementals. > > In my setup, the Incrementals usually complete before any of the > Fulls start, but if something should prolong the Incremental so > it is still running after the Full starts, I could still see a > point to letting the Incremental run (unless its start time is > delayed to the point where it is basing its choice of what to > back up on the time of the concurrently running Full, rather than > the previous Incremental). >
Well, either you don't use the feature, or as planned, you use one of the modes that does not cancel lower levels. Best regards, Kern ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
