tomasz dereszynski wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> tomasz dereszynski wrote: >> >>> depends >>> >>> subject is the same as the backup status! as bacula backed up with no >>> errors everything it could! it couldnt backup some stuff cos for example >>> it do not exist then it is not error only warning. >>> >>> cos the 'small problems you miss' are not problems in terms of how >>> useful is what you backed up. >>> i will more say as bacula is bit 'stupid proof' and i will back up >>> 'stuff' even if you done typo or so. >>> >>> if your fileset contain not existing directory would you like to have >>> backup anyway or not? >>> >>> it means as you are warned about some problems but they are not critical. >>> for me it has a lot of sense. and i think as it is good way of doing it. >>> >>> is it what you asked for? >>> >> Yes and no ;-) >> >> The if the status of the backup was "with warnings" then I would expect >> this to be reflected in the subject of the e-mail. >> >> One real-life example... >> >> We have a job to backup up the Bacula database. The >> 'make_catalog_backup' script is executed at the start and >> 'delete_catalog_backup' at the end, and the job is defined to back up >> only *one* file - the dumped Bacula SQL database text file. >> >> However at some point the dumped database became to large for the >> file-system and the 'make_catalog_backup' and 'delete_catalog_backup' >> script were modified to dump the database to a different file-system. >> >> For some time this job had failed completely because it could no longer >> find the file to back up! Our Bacula database backups were failing and >> we didn't know! >> >> The subject of the job e-mail told us "Backup OK" which was taken to >> mean just that - that the backup was OK. >> However the actual backup status in the contents of the e-mail was "with >> warnings". If the subject reflected the same state as the log then >> someone would have realised the first night! >> >> I find the fact that the subject differs from the actual status illogical. >> > > bacula do not track or care about scripts running as before_backup > thingy if they are successful or not. > > bacula care about files to backup > > if 'external' script for some reason failed i does not mean it is > important for bacula. > > i do understand where you coming from but i still think as STATUS OK is > valid. > > and it this terms i will say as job didnt fail there was just nothing to > backup cos 'make' script was broken. or it was still the same dump file. > > bacula done its job. > > its called human factor isnt it? Hi again Thomasz, You misunderstand again :-p The script wasn't broken. The job definition became incorrect. The job is configured to backup only one file - the dumped Bacula SQL database text file. However because this file changed location the job failed for some time. Because the e-mail subject didn't report "with warnings" no-one noticed for some time! As you say, Bacula cares about files to back up. If any files cause warnings then why wouldn't Bacula show this in the subject with "Backup OK -- with warnings" when the status in the log is also "Backup OK -- with warnings"? The user can still choose to ignore the e-mail the same whether the subject is "Backup OK" or "Backup OK -- with warnings".
I think my real-life example shows how important is it to reflect there were warnings in the subject line, and the confusion caused when the two statuses differ! Justin ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
