On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:11:24AM +0200, Hugo Letemplier wrote: > 2011/4/29 Jérôme Blion <jerome.bl...@free.fr>: > > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:33:48 +0200, Hugo Letemplier > > <hugo.let...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> After the job ran many times: I have the following volume <=> job > > matching > >> Vol name Level Time > >> Test1 Full 15:50 > >> 324 Inc 16:00 > >> 325 Inc 16:10 > >> 326 Inc 16:20 > >> 324 Inc 16:30 > >> Test2 Full 16:40 > >> 325 Inc 16:50 > >> 326 Inc 17:00 > >> > >> This is problematic because Vol324 is recycled instead of creating a new > >> one > >> I am not sure to understand the various retention periods : File, job, > >> volume > >> I think that I can increase the retention times but the problem will > >> always be the same. > >> ex : if I keep my incremental one hour then my first ones will always > >> be purged first > >> In a good strategy you purge the full sequence of incremental at the > >> same time because you need to recycle you volume and don't want to > >> keep a recent volume (incremental) without the previous ones. > > > > You would waste your tape/disk space. > > > >> To do that I imagine that I need to create one pool per day and reduce > >> progressively the retention periods. It doesn't makes sense ! > >> I turned the problem on all its sides but I cant find a good > >> solution. Maybe the other retention period are the solution but I > >> didn't succeeded ? > >> Thanks in advance > > > > That means that your upper backup levels should have greater retentions to > > be sure that at any time, you can use the full + diff + inc if needed. > > Keeping incremental without full backup can be useful to restore only > > specific files. > Yes, but this problem is the same between incremental backups: > Lots of people recommended me to use one pool per level: > It works for Full and differentials, but not for inc pool > Maybe one inc-pool per "incremental run of a scheduling cycle" should > be good ? But it 's not simple > I think that a new feature that add dependency between various job > levels for the next versions of bacula could be cool. > The idea is to allow pruning only for volume/jobs that aren't needed > by other ones whatever are the retention time. > As a consequence : you can prune a full only (((if the differential is > pruned) if the XXX incrementals are pruned) if the last incremental is > pruned ) > So you you can say that the maximum retention time for a full is at > least equal to the retention time of the last inc + the delay between > the full and the this last inc so you have something like this : > full : ========================>>>>>>>> > inc : =========>>>>> > inc : =========>>>> > inc : =========>>> > inc : =========>> > inc : =========> > inc : ========= > diff : ================> > inc : =========>>>>> > inc : =========>>>> > inc : =========>>> > inc : =========>> > inc : =========> > inc : ========= > diff : ================> > inc : =========>>>>> > inc : =========>>>> > inc : =========>>> > inc : =========>> > inc : =========> > inc : ========= > > and not like that : > diff : ==================> > inc : =======> > inc : =======> > inc : =======> > > What do you think about such a feature ?
A while ago, I made a patch that does it. Nobody seemed to want it though. http://www.adsm.org/lists/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00308.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network management toolset available today. Delivers lowest initial acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution. http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
