On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 04:00:59PM -0500, Phil Stracchino wrote: > Ross Boylan wrote: > > Item x: Deletion of Disk-Based Volumes > > Date: Nov 25, 2005 > > Original: Ross Boylan <RossBoylan at stanfordalumni dot org> > > Status: Proposal > > > > What: It would be useful to control how long the actual backups were > > kept for those backups that went to disk-based volumes. A range of > > options similar to those currently available for retaining catalog > > information would be useful. An additional option to permit deletion > > of the actual backup when the record of the associated job and/or > > files is purged from the catalog would also be useful. However, it > > should be possible for the actual backups to be retained for more or > > less time than the associated catalog records. > > > I suggest this could be accomplished with the addition of a single > optional Pool directive valid only for disk volumes: > > Delete Volume When Pruned = Yes > If I understand the manual correctly, when a volume is pruned the associated catalog entries for jobs and files are deleted. It seems to me there's some value in decoupling the lifetime of the volume and the lifetime of the catalog records. Perhaps not enough value to be worth the extra complication, but some value.
Also, how would the proposed option and recycling interact? If Delete Volume When Pruned and Recycle are both yes, who wins? Ross ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
