Re: [Bacula-users] Odd behaviour with Verify Jobs

2010-03-08 Thread Daniel De Marco
FYI: Kern added a patch that fixes the problem. It is attached to the bug report at http://bugs.bacula.org/view.php?id=1524 Daniel. * Daniel De Marco [03/05/2010 16:13]: > I just updated to 5.0.1 and I can confirm the problem is still present. > > I also filed the report at: > http://bugs.bacul

Re: [Bacula-users] Odd behaviour with Verify Jobs

2010-03-05 Thread Daniel De Marco
I just updated to 5.0.1 and I can confirm the problem is still present. I also filed the report at: http://bugs.bacula.org/view.php?id=1524 Daniel. * Thomas [03/05/2010 13:13]: > Hi Daniel, > > > i see the same behaviour on my systems, > this problem exists since the "accurate backup" feature

Re: [Bacula-users] Odd behaviour with Verify Jobs

2010-03-05 Thread Thomas
Hi Daniel, i see the same behaviour on my systems, this problem exists since the "accurate backup" feature was implemented in 3.0.0. (i don't know if this causes the problem, but it is my favourite candidate for that :) ) someone should file a bug report :) Thomas Daniel De Marco schrieb:

[Bacula-users] Odd behaviour with Verify Jobs

2010-03-05 Thread Daniel De Marco
Hi, I've been using InitCatalog and Verify jobs to monitor my production machines. This seems to work very well when there are modified files. However if a new files appears in one of the monitored directories then all the files from then on will be reported at the same time as missing and as new