On Thursday 01 December 2005 09:39, Sebastian Stark wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:04:40AM +0100, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
> > Maybe I am wrong, but as I'm having the same problem for months, I deduce
> > there is something wrong on the Bacula pdf document: it states that
> > bacula will consider the shortest retention period during prune. So, I
> > guessed from the beginning that shortening the Volume Retention Period
> > would force bacula to purge jobs and files even though they have a longer
> > retention period.
>
> I thought I was sure about this but then I read
>
> http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/Automatic_Volume_Recycling.html
>
> again and now I'm not so sure anymore.
Yes, a shorter Volume retention period will "force" pruning of job and file
data, but as the manual and a recent email point out, after changing
the .conf volume retention period, you must update the catalog data for
volumes that already exist.
--
Best regards,
Kern
(">
/\
V_V
-------------------------------------------------------
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
