On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 04:07:36PM +0100, stefano scotti wrote: > > I'm using mixed priorities because i want to handle the case in which all > job slots are occupied. > > For example, if there are only a free slot i'd like to assign it to a more > important job (like mailboxes) instead of a not critical job (like server > configurations). > > Are you suggesting that, because of bacula behavior, i should increment the > number of slots instead of assign priorities to the critical jobs? > > I don't like very much this solution... a lot of job will eat my bandwidth > slowing every job scheduled in that time, included the critical ones that > should be completed as fast as possible! > That's exactly what i want to avoid. > > Thank you again. >
Why don't you use different schedules and start the important jobs ahead of the slow ones? You an also split slow jobs into separate jobs (filesets) to have them finish in less than 24 hours. Another option could be to rsync the slow clients to on-disk storage and then backing up the local fs on the bacula server (that's how I handled two especially slow clients with millions of small files). Cheers, Uwe -- NIONEX --- Ein Unternehmen der Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report. http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
