------ Forwarded Message
> From: David Boyes <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:31:13 -0500
> To: Kern Sibbald <[email protected]>
> Conversation: [Bacula-devel] Copy jobs in Bacula version 3.0.0
> Subject: Re: [Bacula-devel] Copy jobs in Bacula version 3.0.0
>
>
>> 1. It is possible that a simple restore will choose JobIds from both the
>> original and the Copy Job.
>
> Good. That's what we *want* it to do. It should prefer the jobs contained on
> volumes that are already mounted, then any of the volumes that are at the
> physical location and are in the changer, then fall back to volumes that are
> at the same site but not in the changer, and then to volumes at other
> locations (eg, higher cost).
>
>> 2. There is no easy mechanism for the user to select whether he/she wants to
>> restore from the original backup or the Copy (or Copies).
>
> If they are truly identical copies, why should they care? This is an
> operational issue, not a user preference.
>
>> 1. Any restore where Bacula automatically selects the jobs to be restored
>> (e.g. a restore to the current state -- #5 on the restore prompt menu) should
>> be done by default using the original backups.
>
> No. If you have truly copied the data, it shouldn't matter which copy gets
> used. It should be the operationally most "convenient" copy.
>
>> 2. If a job has been copied, Bacula should probably display an information
>> message during the restore that indicates that the JobIds to be used have
>> Copies.
>
> In the job log, maybe. It's not something that a user needs to care about
> unless the job needs offsite media, at which point the only thing they should
> be able to select is whether they want to wait, or cancel the restore.
>
>> 3. The restore command should allow the user to select any Copy job or jobs.
>
> Why? Again, if it's a true copy, why does the user need to care, other than if
> there will be a long delay?
>
>> In my opinion, this would simplify future handling of Copy jobs allowing a
>> lot
>> more flexibility and avoiding confusion. However, it will cause some minor
>> changes (nothing serious, I believe) for users already using the new code.
>
> I think it's more confusing this way. The Bacula administrator may care. Users
> don't need to care, and shouldn't even know.
------ End of Forwarded Message
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
_______________________________________________
Bacula-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
