On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 10:14:57PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: > On Tuesday 04 October 2005 20:51, Phil Stracchino wrote: > > Ross Boylan wrote: > > > The description of the priority option for Job says that > > > "If by chance Bacula treats a lower priority first, then it will run > > > before your high priority jobs. To avoid this, start any higher > > > priority a few seconds before the lower ones." > > > > > > I don't understand what good priorities do then. If I schedule the > > > jobs in the sequence I want them to run, that alone should determine > > > their sequence (at least if I follow the recommendation for one job at > > > a time). The discussion seems to imply that priority is relevant > > > both with and without concurrent jobs. > > > > I believe the answer is that the prioritizing code doesn't actually work > > as well as it is intended to. > > > > A suggestion here, Kern: Since the Director already "preschedules" > > upcoming jobs, could it not sort and queue them in order of priority at > > that time? > > I believe that it already does exactly that. It is just that it is *very* > hard to guarantee something 100% if the times are identical. > > If someone wants to invest the time to look at this, and if it is broken, > submit a patch, great. Otherwise, I stick to my (perhaps poorly worded) > advice above. > Given jobs scheduled at different times, does priority add anything to when they are run?
Or is it more that if they are at the same time, priority will "usually" affect execution order, but you can't count on it 100%? ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
