Hello,
Yes, thanks for bringing it to my attention. That is code I forgot to remove
after adding new read/write Volume management code to the SD. I have removed
the old test in the current development version.
Regards,
Kern
On Thursday 07 January 2010 08:25:54 Jim Barber wrote:
> Hi.
>
> A while ago I tried to set up a backup strategy where I defined three
> pools. An incremental pool; a full backup pool; and a copy pool.
>
> The idea was to run incremental backups forever (except for the first one
> that would be promoted to a full). Then at the end each week consolidate
> the incremental backups into a full backup using a VirtualFull job. Then
> take a copy of the full backup for off-site storage.
>
> When using a tape library with two drives, I could achieve incremental and
> virtual full backups okay. But I could not run the Copy job because it
> refused to run, complaining that the read storage is the same as the write
> storage.
>
> I looked at the code for migrate.c and compared it to vbackup.c since both
> have similar concepts. I wanted to see why the virtual backups work and the
> copy jobs wouldn't. I found identical code in both, except in the vbackup.c
> the particular check that fails for migrate.c has been wrapped in #ifdef to
> remove it. Also a FIXME comment is in vbackup.c saying that instead it
> should just verify that the pools are different.
>
> I made the same changes to migrate.c (including adding the FIXME comment)
> as there were in vbackup.c After doing that my copy job then worked okay
> within my tape library and my backup strategy works as I expected.
>
> Below is a patch to migrate.c to do the same thing as vbackup.c does.
> It applies to the latest git checkout of the Bacula code.
>
> --- bacula-3.0.3.orig/src/dird/migrate.c
> +++ bacula-3.0.3/src/dird/migrate.c
> @@ -350,11 +350,14 @@
> Dmsg2(dbglevel, "Read store=%s, write store=%s\n",
> ((STORE *)jcr->rstorage->first())->name(),
> ((STORE *)jcr->wstorage->first())->name());
> + /* ***FIXME*** we really should simply verify that the pools are
> different */ +#ifdef xxx
> if (((STORE *)jcr->rstorage->first())->name() == ((STORE
> *)jcr->wstorage->first())->name()) { Jmsg(jcr, M_FATAL, 0, _("Read storage
> \"%s\" same as write storage.\n"), ((STORE
> *)jcr->rstorage->first())->name());
> return false;
> }
> +#endif
> if (!start_storage_daemon_job(jcr, jcr->rstorage, jcr->wstorage,
> /*send_bsr*/true)) { return false;
> }
>
> What would be involved in having this patch accepted into the code base?
>
> Regards,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community
Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support
A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy
Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers
http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Bacula-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
