> -Original Message-
> From: Phil Stracchino [mailto:ala...@metrocast.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 3:05 PM
> To: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Simplified pools
>
> On 04/06/10 17:28, Kevin Keane wrote:
> >> Fro
On 7/04/2010 8:26 PM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
>> Oh well, I'll use it if it still works. It's not like I can't port the
>> config over to whatever is required later if it is ever dropped. Thanks
>> for the tip.
>>
>> I'm troubled by the approach taken with Bacula of "it's possible with
>> some scri
On 04/07/10 00:54, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Yeah, that works ... when you only need to control pools based on job level.
>
> My problem is that sometimes I need to control other job attibutes, such
> as spooling, by job level.
>
> The mechanism just needs to be generalised a little, so your above
>
On 04/07/10 00:42, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Phil Stracchino wrote:
>> I can confirm that it still works in 5.x as well. I use this for disk
>> volumes:
>>
>> Label Format =
>> "FULL-$Year${Month:p/2/0/r}${Day:p/2/0/r}-${Hour:p/2/0/r}:${Minute:p/2/0/r}"
>>
>> (with alterations for Differential and I
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:05:17 -0400, Phil Stracchino said:
>
> On 04/06/10 17:28, Kevin Keane wrote:
> >> From: Phil Stracchino [mailto:ala...@metrocast.net]
> >>
> >> Actually, this is a problem which has largely been fixed in
> >> Bacula-3 and later, by changing the way overrides work.
> >
Phil Stracchino wrote:
> On 04/06/10 17:28, Kevin Keane wrote:
>>> From: Phil Stracchino [mailto:ala...@metrocast.net]
>>>
>>> Actually, this is a problem which has largely been fixed in
>>> Bacula-3 and later, by changing the way overrides work.
>> Really? I see this problem in bacula 3.0.3 all th
Phil Stracchino wrote:
> On 04/06/10 17:26, Kevin Keane wrote:
I would NOT recommend the AddLevelSuffix directive - that is too
inflexible, as well as unnecessary. You can simply include
${Level} in your LabelFormat directive. Note that if you include
a variable in the label fo
On 04/06/10 17:28, Kevin Keane wrote:
>> From: Phil Stracchino [mailto:ala...@metrocast.net]
>>
>> Actually, this is a problem which has largely been fixed in
>> Bacula-3 and later, by changing the way overrides work.
>
> Really? I see this problem in bacula 3.0.3 all the time. Maybe I need
> to
On 04/06/10 17:26, Kevin Keane wrote:
>>> I would NOT recommend the AddLevelSuffix directive - that is too
>>> inflexible, as well as unnecessary. You can simply include
>>> ${Level} in your LabelFormat directive. Note that if you include
>>> a variable in the label format, Bacula will no longer
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Phil Stracchino [mailto:ala...@metrocast.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 5:53 AM
> To: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Simplified pools
>
> On 04/06/10 06:00, Kevin Keane wrote:
> > Your i
> > I would NOT recommend the AddLevelSuffix directive - that is too
> > inflexible, as well as unnecessary. You can simply include ${Level}
> > in your LabelFormat directive. Note that if you include a variable in
> > the label format, Bacula will no longer automatically append the
> > volume ID.
On 04/06/10 06:00, Kevin Keane wrote:
> Your idea would solve very nicely solve one really ugly problem: when
> manually running a backup job, the job may end up in the wrong pool -
> even if you actually remembered to select the correct one. For
> instance, let's say that the most recent Different
On 04/06/10 02:36, Craig Ringer wrote:
> where they're all pretty repetitive except for the retention periods and
> volume names. I'm wondering if it'd be worth thinking about extending
> the director's pool config with a shorthand to allow easier
> configuration of full/diff/incr pool sets. Here,
Kevin Keane wrote:
> I second this idea. Maybe you could turn it into a feature request
> (see the Web site for instructions on how to do that).
>
> Your idea would solve very nicely solve one really ugly problem: when
> manually running a backup job, the job may end up in the wrong pool -
> even
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 02:36:38PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I'm sure many people using disk-based storage find that, like me, they
> have three pools defined for almost every job or at least class of job,
> like this:
You could use standard include ("@") feature of bacula configuration
files,
olume ID.
LabelFormat="System${Level}-${NumVols}"
> -Original Message-
> From: Craig Ringer [mailto:cr...@postnewspapers.com.au]
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 11:37 PM
> To: bacula-users
> Subject: [Bacula-users] Simplified pools
>
> Hi
>
> I'm
Hi
I'm sure many people using disk-based storage find that, like me, they
have three pools defined for almost every job or at least class of job,
like this:
Pool {
Name = "SystemFullPool"
Storage = "SystemStorage"
Pool Type = Backup
Recycle = yes
AutoPrune = yes
Volume Retention = 2 m
17 matches
Mail list logo
