Am 23.01.24 um 10:46 schrieb Pedro Oliveira:
Hi Pierre
Hello Pedro,

I anwered also to the list. It looks like your answer does'nt it.

In Bacula, Verify Jobs perform three important tasks to ensure data integrity:

Verify Volume Data Integrity
Verify Volume Metadata Integrity
Verify File System Integrity

Verify Volume Data Integrity

Verifying the data written to a Volume is done using a level=data for a Verify 
Job of Bacula. Such a Job will read all data records from a Volume, and for 
each object encountered, will calculate the checksum and record the size. That 
information is then compared against the metadata as stored on the Volume. 
Doing so, the Storage Daemon is able to detect data corruption on the storage 
media.
In this case maybe I can use it instead of my other suggestion to simply use a 
copy
job to /dev/null. Maybe it is a little bit overdrawn to simply make a simple 
read test
the the tape is still readable. But better this than nothing ;-)

Verify Volume Metadata Integrity

Bacula allows to compare the metadata read from the media against what it 
stored in the catalog. With Bacula, this comparison is done on a Job-by-Job 
basis; other backup systems often verify complete volumes.
This could be used if it is possible to compare the metadata read from the 
media against a
different job id. But I think this is not possible for the moment.


In terms of Job to Job Verification, Bacula does not have that possibility 
without building some SQL queries.
Is there already a way to recreate alike virtual full backup based on given 
jobids of allready created backups
which only created in the database based on already stored data and metadata?

Nevertheless, its a nice Feature that can be very useful, let me discuss 
internally with Bacula Support Team, about this possibility, I will update you 
soon with more details.
Thanks for that.

Pierre



_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

Reply via email to