Re: [Bacula-users] Incremental Backups and 'new' old files
On Thu, 19 May 2005 02:02:37 +0200, Arno Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Arno Ryan LeBlanc wrote: Arno, thank you for your response. Here are our details: Bacula version 1.36.3 server running on Linux kernel 2.4.26. It has ext2 partitions mounted (rw) Arno Ok, the server doesn't matter here, I think. The client is running Windows XP, no special mount options, just windows default. NTFS format on the partition Arno As far as I know, NTFS has similar timestamps - atime, mtime and ctime - Arno as normal unix file systems. I'm not sure, but I think I remember Arno reading somewhere that under Windows you can avoid changing them when Arno you modify a file. In particular, renaming or moving a file doesn't change any of the NTFS timestamps, unlike on most unix filesystems where it sets the ctime to nowtime. __Martin --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes Want to be the first software developer in space? Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7412alloc_id=16344op=click ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
[Bacula-users] Incremental Backups and 'new' old files
We are running tests with Bacula to see if it will work in our environment. So far, we are very impressed! We have, however, run into a small problem. We do a full backup of a folder, and all files are copied as expected. We then put a file into this folder. It, however is an old file with a create/modified date older than the latest full backup. However, this file is new to the folder. Bacula ignores this file in the incremental backup. The next full backup to come along backs the file up as expected, along with everything else in the folder. Is this a bug, by design, or a configuration problem on our end? Ryan --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes Want to be the first software developer in space? Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7412alloc_id=16344op=click ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Incremental Backups and 'new' old files
Arno, thank you for your response. Here are our details: Bacula version 1.36.3 server running on Linux kernel 2.4.26. It has ext2 partitions mounted (rw) The client is running Windows XP, no special mount options, just windows default. NTFS format on the partition Arno Lehmann wrote: Hello, Ryan LeBlanc wrote: We are running tests with Bacula to see if it will work in our environment. So far, we are very impressed! We have, however, run into a small problem. We do a full backup of a folder, and all files are copied as expected. We then put a file into this folder. It, however is an old file with a create/modified date older than the latest full backup. However, this file is new to the folder. Bacula ignores this file in the incremental backup. The next full backup to come along backs the file up as expected, along with everything else in the folder. Is this a bug, by design, or a configuration problem on our end? The behaviour you observe might depend on the file system. According to the manual, (under unix and linux systems) the timestamps of the last modification or attribute change. Usually, what you describe should result in a new attribute change timestamp. However, that might depend on your filesystem and its mount options. So, most probably, it's a configuration problem or happens by using the wrong operating system. Well, I didn't check this here, but at least that's what the manual says. You might want to tell us which client operating system, file system and mount options you use - perhaps someone can tell more then. Arno Ryan --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes Want to be the first software developer in space? Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7412alloc_id=16344op=click ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes Want to be the first software developer in space? Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7412alloc_id=16344op=click ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Incremental Backups and 'new' old files
Ryan LeBlanc wrote: Arno, thank you for your response. Here are our details: Bacula version 1.36.3 server running on Linux kernel 2.4.26. It has ext2 partitions mounted (rw) Ok, the server doesn't matter here, I think. The client is running Windows XP, no special mount options, just windows default. NTFS format on the partition As far as I know, NTFS has similar timestamps - atime, mtime and ctime - as normal unix file systems. I'm not sure, but I think I remember reading somewhere that under Windows you can avoid changing them when you modify a file. Let's see what other say... Arno Arno Lehmann wrote: Hello, Ryan LeBlanc wrote: We are running tests with Bacula to see if it will work in our environment. So far, we are very impressed! We have, however, run into a small problem. We do a full backup of a folder, and all files are copied as expected. We then put a file into this folder. It, however is an old file with a create/modified date older than the latest full backup. However, this file is new to the folder. Bacula ignores this file in the incremental backup. The next full backup to come along backs the file up as expected, along with everything else in the folder. Is this a bug, by design, or a configuration problem on our end? The behaviour you observe might depend on the file system. According to the manual, (under unix and linux systems) the timestamps of the last modification or attribute change. Usually, what you describe should result in a new attribute change timestamp. However, that might depend on your filesystem and its mount options. So, most probably, it's a configuration problem or happens by using the wrong operating system. Well, I didn't check this here, but at least that's what the manual says. You might want to tell us which client operating system, file system and mount options you use - perhaps someone can tell more then. Arno Ryan --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes Want to be the first software developer in space? Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7412alloc_id=16344op=click ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users -- IT-Service Lehmann[EMAIL PROTECTED] Arno Lehmann http://www.its-lehmann.de --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes Want to be the first software developer in space? Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7412alloc_id=16344op=click ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
