Re: [Bacula-users] confused about differentials

> On 13 May 2015, at 17:38, Ana Emília M. Arruda wrote: > > ​You should compare the job 9938 with the last full backup and not the > incremental one. Radoslaw explained that in the second post in this thread. The files in that last incremental were not present in the previous full dump.

Re: [Bacula-users] confused about differentials

> On 13 May 2015, at 17:13, Kern Sibbald wrote: > > We have never had any version of Bacula in which Differential backups were > incomplete. That's really good to know, thanks for the confirmation. > Running with a FD that is more recent that the Dir and the SD or a Dir and SD > that are not

Re: [Bacula-users] confused about differentials

> On 13 May 2015, at 07:20, Radosław Korzeniewski > wrote: > > I appear to be seeing the same problem with CentOS 6 / CentOS 6 combinations: > > > OS versions doesn't matter. What is important: Bacula Dir/SD vs. File Daemon > versions. The supported configuration require Dir/SD in the same v

Re: [Bacula-users] confused about differentials

> On 12 May 2015, at 10:09, Alex Domoradov wrote: > > I'm using 5.2.13 on CentOS 6 form the following repo - > https://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/slaanesh/bacula/ > without any problem. > So you could try it. Thanks for the pointer.

Re: [Bacula-users] confused about differentials

> On 12 May 2015, at 07:33, Radosław Korzeniewski > wrote: > > why does the subsequent differential not appear to include any of them, given > that it's supposed to be backing up everything changed since the last full > dump (in my case, on 2015-04-19) ? > > Well, it should. A differential b

[Bacula-users] confused about differentials

I've been using Bacula for quite a few years, and it has helped me dig myself out of the occasional problem. Today I'm recovering from a more serious problem and I find that some of the files I'm trying to restore don't get restored. Amongst other things, I'm confused by the following from "list