On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Kern Sibbald wrote: >> Kern, I've been wondering about this for a while. Wouldn't it be better to >> have the file details for aborted backups inserted to the database than >> simply dumped? > > This is currently what Bacula does when you do not use spooling -- i.e. > neither data spooling nor attribute spooling, so in *some* cases (probably > not the most useful), it is already implemented.
I know, but as you say, some cases. > I'm not convinced that the average user wants the attributes for a failed job > put into the database, as in most cases, they are pretty much useless, and > simply consume more disk space -- after all, 99.9% of the time you are going > to re-run the failed job. IMO: The files are already on the tape, will be there until the tape is purged (manually or aged out) and may as well be catalogged Yes, another backup would be run 99.9% of the time, but being able to easily reach files in an aborted backup covers the "DOH!" moment when a user wipes out a file which wasn't in the last sucessful incremental save. 1Tb Full backups take at least a day to run here, so there's a window of non-coverage if one fails partway through. AB ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
