Hello, Thanks for the Feature Request. This is a feature that I have wanted to see for some time. I'm impressed to receive a patch that in addition to the code contains the documentation -- a *really* nice surprise.
I'll take a careful look at the patch in the next few days and get back to you. Best regards, Kern On Thursday 07 February 2008 23.32:03 Bailey, Scott wrote: > Item 1: (Optionally) force backups to be upgraded more aggressively > Origin: Scott Bailey <scott dot bailey at eds dot com> > Date: 7 February 2008 > Status: "I can't believe he did that" draft patch attached > > What: Add "Max Full Age" specifier to job definitions > > Why: Bacula's current behavior is to force an incremental or > differential backup to be upgraded to a full backup if > no previous > successful backup is found. In practice, this means that > bacula > discovers no full backup exists and tries to create a > replacement > *AFTER* you have eliminated your last good full backup. > > :-( > > This proposal allows this behavior to be modified, i.e. > addition > of "Max Full Age = 1 month" to a job definition causes > the next > backup to become a full backup if no full has completed > successfully during the previous month. This provides a > proactive > safety net in the event jobs, retries, etc. have not > succeeded in > generating a good full backup within some expected > interval. > > It also simplifies scheduling for sites (such as my > house) where > precise scheduling of backups is unimportant but the > general cycle > is known. Presently, multiple systems on the same > schedule have > full backups that pile up; jobs at the end of the queue > time out > and are cancelled before they can run. They then tend > not to be > noticed, resulting in an endless chain of incrementals > in the event > a restore is required. The proposed behavior allows a > simple daily > incremental schedule with a suitable Max Full Age > specifier to > automatically generate full backups as required without > further > attention or intervention. > > Notes: If this specifier is not used, existing behavior is preserved. > > It is anyone's guess if the logic in the attached patch > actually > works as I intended or described. :-) It compiles > against head > without errors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
