On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 at 20:14, Phil Stracchino <ph...@caerllewys.net> wrote:
> > In this meaning the dbcheck behavior and block removing orphaned paths > > for me is understandable to avoid rebuilding everything. > > Oh yeah, the consistency problem is fully understandable, it just seems > an oversight that dbcheck seems unable to fully handle the presence of a > populated bvfs cache. It seems like a part of dbcheck should be > checking and updating the bvfs cache if present. > > > > BTW: When the cache is manually cleared by '.bvfs_clear_cache yes' it > > will be completely (re)built anyway. > > > Gotcha. > > If I do a .bvfs_update WITHOUT specifying a jobid, will it do a full > rebuild? I'm thinking what I'd LIKE to do is the following: > Hello Phil, The .bvfs_update without specifying a jobid does update for all jobs :-) I mean all jobs for which the cache has not been created yet. It is still the incremental process. > NIGHTLY > Run all scheduled client backup jobs > Incremental rebuild bvfs cache > Run catalog backup > > WEEKLY > Clear bvfs cache > Run dbcheck > Full rebuild bvfs cache Yes, I see your idea. This full rebuild will cost creating all cache from scratch. For many jobs and paths it will take lots of resources. I have to admit I don't see an easy solution to run dbcheck for paths and keep Bvfs cache. Best regards, Marcin Haba (gani)
_______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
