On Wednesday 07 November 2007 04:12, John Jorgensen wrote:
> > "dboyes" == David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> dboyes> I agree with you. It's dumb to do an incremental
> dboyes> followed immediately by a full backup if they're
> dboyes> going to dump the same data in roughly
> "dboyes" == David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
dboyes> I agree with you. It's dumb to do an incremental
dboyes> followed immediately by a full backup if they're
dboyes> going to dump the same data in roughly the same
dboyes> timeframe.
What if the incremental and full b
David Boyes wrote:
>> I hadn't planned to cancel the lower priority job, but I had thought
> about
>> the
>> possibility. However, now that you mention it, I think we need some
>> keyword
>> to do this. Any suggestions? -- CancelLower, HigherWithCancel ?
>
> On further thought, perhaps the righ
On Sunday 04 November 2007 23:09, David Boyes wrote:
> > I hadn't planned to cancel the lower priority job, but I had thought
>
> about
>
> > the
> > possibility. However, now that you mention it, I think we need some
> > keyword
> > to do this. Any suggestions? -- CancelLower, HigherWithCancel
> I hadn't planned to cancel the lower priority job, but I had thought
about
> the
> possibility. However, now that you mention it, I think we need some
> keyword
> to do this. Any suggestions? -- CancelLower, HigherWithCancel ?
On further thought, perhaps the right thing to do would be to prom
On Sunday 04 November 2007 21:55, Dan Langille wrote:
> I can this this feature being useful to me when out of town and
> Bacula needs a new tape, but doesn't get one for several days.
Yes precisely.
I was lax with my wording -- I meant Job Level everywhere and not Priority.
Priority is not at
I can this this feature being useful to me when out of town and
Bacula needs a new tape, but doesn't get one for several days.
On 4 Nov 2007 at 19:15, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On Sunday 04 November 2007 18:31, David Boyes wrote:
> > > 1. Allow Duplicate Jobs = Yes | No | Higher (Yes)
> >
> > Lo
Hi,
04.11.2007 19:15,, Kern Sibbald wrote::
> On Sunday 04 November 2007 18:31, David Boyes wrote:
>>> 1. Allow Duplicate Jobs = Yes | No | Higher (Yes)
>> Looks OK. One question: if a lower level job is running, and a higher
>> level job attempts to start, does this imply that the lower level
On Sunday 04 November 2007 18:31, David Boyes wrote:
> > 1. Allow Duplicate Jobs = Yes | No | Higher (Yes)
>
> Looks OK. One question: if a lower level job is running, and a higher
> level job attempts to start, does this imply that the lower level job is
> cancelled, and the higher level one i
> 1. Allow Duplicate Jobs = Yes | No | Higher (Yes)
Looks OK. One question: if a lower level job is running, and a higher
level job attempts to start, does this imply that the lower level job is
cancelled, and the higher level one is run instead? I think this is
desirable behavior if possible
10 matches
Mail list logo
