On 06/01/2011 17:16, Graham Keeling wrote: > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 05:02:47PM +0000, Mister IT Guru wrote: >> I've been trying to get my head around virtual full backups. >> >> Now, from my understanding, (i'm 80% through my work day, shut down 20 >> tickets, and had to deal with too many user incidents for my liking, so >> please bare with me if I say something stupid!), virtual fulls can be >> run on the same pool as a real 'recent' full has been run on, and it >> will create a new full based on all the latest files still in the pool. >> It then takes these files, and only take the latest changed files, from >> the client to create a new usable full backup, which should pretty much >> take the same time as between and incremental and a differential. >> >> If this is the case, then I can slash my backup times, from 5 hours per >> host, to around 20 minutes, which is something I think would be pretty >> frikkin' awesome! Feel free to comment, and suggest :) > No, it doesn't take the latest files from the client. > > It would solve a couple of problems that I have if that is what it did though. > > A VirtualFull combines previous backups into a single backup that is > equivalent to a Full. > > So, if you have a schedule like this: > > Monday: Incremental > Tuesday: Incremental > Wednesday: Incremental > Thursday: Incremental > Friday: Incremental > Saturday: Incremental > Sunday: Incremental > > You can't, say, just do this: > > Monday: Incremental > Tuesday: Incremental > Wednesday: Incremental > Thursday: VirtualFull > Friday: Incremental > Saturday: Incremental > Sunday: Incremental > > You actually have to do this, otherwise you don't get a backup for that day: > > Monday: Incremental > Tuesday: Incremental > Wednesday: Incremental > Thursday: VirtualFull plus seperate Incremental > Friday: Incremental > Saturday: Incremental > Sunday: Incremental > > And that means that you get into problems with the VirtualFull and Incremental > overlapping and getting in each other's way. > > With my configuration, a VirtualFull sometimes prevents an Incremental from > running, because the VirtualFull took too long (or vice versa). I have not > been > able to solve this, because every idea that I've come up with either doesn't > work or makes something else happen that is worse. > > So, I would be very pleased if a VirtualFull also grabbed new files from the > client. > Thank you for pointing this out! So it doesn't grab new files from the client first? Well, that's not the smartest! Hmm, I wonder - How would you get a job to run run after another job, rather than have bacula decide via priorities?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users