Re: [Bacula-users] 1.38.11 - possible bug in Rerun Failed Levels.

2006-12-14 Thread Alan Brown
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Kern Sibbald wrote: >> That isn't a good idea: >>A 1Tb full backup may take several days to run, in LTO2 spool/despool >>time alone. Incrementals tend to run daily... > > I just described how it is implemented. Something else I've spotted If max concurrent jobs i

Re: [Bacula-users] 1.38.11 - possible bug in Rerun Failed Levels.

2006-12-14 Thread Alan Brown
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Kern Sibbald wrote: > On Thursday 14 December 2006 17:59, Alan Brown wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Kern Sibbald wrote: >> Kern, any ideas? >>> >>> 1. Probably you modified the Fileset. >> >> All the jobs have "ignore fileset changes = yes" > > The Ignore fileset changes

Re: [Bacula-users] 1.38.11 - possible bug in Rerun Failed Levels.

2006-12-14 Thread Kern Sibbald
On Thursday 14 December 2006 17:59, Alan Brown wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Kern Sibbald wrote: > > >> Kern, any ideas? > > > > 1. Probably you modified the Fileset. > > All the jobs have "ignore fileset changes = yes" The Ignore fileset changes doesn't apply to rerunning failed jobs. > > > 2

Re: [Bacula-users] 1.38.11 - possible bug in Rerun Failed Levels.

2006-12-14 Thread Alan Brown
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Kern Sibbald wrote: >> Kern, any ideas? > > 1. Probably you modified the Fileset. All the jobs have "ignore fileset changes = yes" > 2. You could try running the following SQL where you fill in the missing > pieces: > SELECT Level FROM Job WHERE JobStatus!='T' AND Type='%c'

Re: [Bacula-users] 1.38.11 - possible bug in Rerun Failed Levels.

2006-12-14 Thread Kern Sibbald
On Thursday 14 December 2006 16:51, Alan Brown wrote: > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Alan Brown wrote: > > > > > Can anyone else confirm this? > > > > > > > > Rerun Failed Levels = yes > > > > If an incremental job is scheduled to start before a full or differential > > job has completed (ie, still r

Re: [Bacula-users] 1.38.11 - possible bug in Rerun Failed Levels.

2006-12-14 Thread Alan Brown
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Alan Brown wrote: > > Can anyone else confirm this? > > > > Rerun Failed Levels = yes > > If an incremental job is scheduled to start before a full or differential > job has completed (ie, still running): When the incremental job starts the > previous (still running) job

Re: [Bacula-users] 1.38.11 - possible bug in Rerun Failed Levels.

2006-12-14 Thread Alan Brown
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Arno Lehmann wrote: > Hi, > > On 12/13/2006 1:07 PM, Alan Brown wrote: >> Can anyone else confirm this? >> >> >> >> Rerun Failed Levels = yes >> >> If an incremental job is scheduled to start before a full or differential >> job has completed (ie, still running): When the

Re: [Bacula-users] 1.38.11 - possible bug in Rerun Failed Levels.

2006-12-13 Thread Arno Lehmann
Hi, On 12/13/2006 1:07 PM, Alan Brown wrote: > Can anyone else confirm this? > > > > Rerun Failed Levels = yes > > If an incremental job is scheduled to start before a full or differential > job has completed (ie, still running): When the incremental job starts the > previous (still runn

[Bacula-users] 1.38.11 - possible bug in Rerun Failed Levels.

2006-12-13 Thread Alan Brown
Can anyone else confirm this? Rerun Failed Levels = yes If an incremental job is scheduled to start before a full or differential job has completed (ie, still running): When the incremental job starts the previous (still running) job is detected as "failed" and the incremental is upgrad