[Bacula-users] File deamon not following configuration

2013-05-05 Thread Wouter van Marle
Hi, I'm having a big problem with my bacula configuration. It is supposed to create a new large archive every time a job is run, with a.o. the job name and start date and time in the name. Now some time ago I changed this scheme, made it small chunks (50 MB), many chunks for one archive. I didn'

Re: [Bacula-users] File deamon not following configuration

2013-05-09 Thread Wouter van Marle
I have done an update for the File and Default pools in bconsole, but the problem persists. Still not using the correct file names, and still cutting it off at 50M per chunk. Wouter. On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 11:49 +0200, Radosław Korzeniewski wrote: > Hello, > > 2013/5/6 Wouter

Re: [Bacula-users] File deamon not following configuration

2013-05-09 Thread Wouter van Marle
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 12:46 +0200, Radosław Korzeniewski wrote: > Hello, > > 2013/5/9 Wouter van Marle > *show pool=File > Pool: name=File PoolType=Backup > use_cat=1 use_once=1 cat_files=1 > max_vols=0 auto_prune=

Re: [Bacula-users] File deamon not following configuration

2013-06-14 Thread Wouter van Marle
: > Hello, > > > 2013/5/15 Wouter van Marle > Hereby example of a message from a job. It seems to be > recycling a > volume, even though I have set "Recycle = no" in > bacula-dir.conf! > > > Show output of the bconsole co

Re: [Bacula-users] File deamon not following configuration

2013-06-14 Thread Wouter van Marle
? Wouter. On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 12:21 +0200, Radosław Korzeniewski wrote: > Hello, > > > 2013/5/15 Wouter van Marle > Hereby example of a message from a job. It seems to be > recycling a > volume, even though I have set "Recycle = no&quo

Re: [Bacula-users] File deamon not following configuration

2013-06-14 Thread Wouter van Marle
bconsole doesn't seem to support this. * list media pool=File > out.txt Still prints them on screen. Wouter. On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 09:42 +0200, Radosław Korzeniewski wrote: > Hello, > > 2013/6/14 Wouter van Marle > OK just checked on this. > >

[Bacula-users] Runafterjob issue

2012-10-03 Thread Wouter van Marle
Hi all, I'm trying to launch a runafterjob script to upload my just created archive to another server. As this can take long - a day or so, and other backup jobs are to be run (I have three jobs: two backup jobs of separate parts of the system plus the database backup), I intend to do this uploa

Re: [Bacula-users] Runafterjob issue

2012-10-04 Thread Wouter van Marle
That works, thanks for the quick reply! Would be nice to have this mentioned in the docs, if it's there I totally missed it. Writing a real script is of course easy, it's just messy and harder to see what's going on if I revisit this which may be years from now. Wouter. > To not mess with writi

Re: [Bacula-users] Runafterjob issue

2012-10-04 Thread Wouter van Marle
is the only way out here :-( And I'll think of some improvement of the docs. Adding an example will probably do the job, both by clarifying the issue and by giving it more focus. Wouter. On Thu, 2012-10-04 at 17:40 +0400, Konstantin Khomoutov wrote: > On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 20:44:33 +08

[Bacula-users] Use modify time, not access time

2012-11-15 Thread Wouter van Marle
Hi, I have a big problem with Bacula and the backup of my Cyrus mail store: it is backing up way too much. When doing incremental it's supposed to look at modify time (which for many mails - one file per e-mail - is months or years past), but it appears to look at the access time instead. Result

Re: [Bacula-users] Use modify time, not access time

2012-11-15 Thread Wouter van Marle
On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 15:46 +1100, Gary R, Schmidt wrote: > On 16.11.2012 13:52, Wouter van Marle wrote: > [SNIP] > > Result: yesterday I moved a big mail folder with subfolders, causing > > the > You *moved* a directory, and you are surprised that the files in it are > b

Re: [Bacula-users] Use modify time, not access time

2012-11-15 Thread Wouter van Marle
> You should include the Job {} in question, and any JobDefs in use. > > I suspect you are doing accurate backups. > That I switched off already; may have been the cause. I always got excessive incremental backup sizes, 500 MB while expecting 10-50 MB. Issue at hand is that I moved a mailbox, th