Re: [bareos-users] Re: Is FD Connect Timeout the correct approach

2018-11-16 Thread Raymond Norton
Originally, I attempted that and it would be my preference but the director would not connect to the client. I am assuming I was missing something on the client machine that the director needed. I will need to dig into it more to find out what was missing. On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 6:2

[bareos-users] Re: Is FD Connect Timeout the correct approach

2018-11-16 Thread Albert Marques
On Thursday, 15 November 2018 22:01:28 UTC+1, Raymond Norton wrote: > On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 8:47:41 AM UTC-6, Raymond Norton wrote: > > My new Bareos setup is working fine but jobs stack up when a client PC is > > down. I would like for Bareos to try 5 minutes or less and move on to th

[bareos-users] Re: Is FD Connect Timeout the correct approach

2018-11-15 Thread Stefan Klatt
Hi Raymond, what about the other way? A job which try to reach the client and if possible it starts the backup job. If not it logs the event. Greetings Stefan Klatt Am 15.11.2018 um 16:28 schrieb Raymond Norton: > On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 8:47:41 AM UTC-6, Raymond Norton wrote: >> My n

[bareos-users] Re: Is FD Connect Timeout the correct approach

2018-11-15 Thread Raymond Norton
On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 8:47:41 AM UTC-6, Raymond Norton wrote: > My new Bareos setup is working fine but jobs stack up when a client PC is > down. I would like for Bareos to try 5 minutes or less and move on to the > next job. I added FD Connect Timeout 1 to the dir config but it did no

[bareos-users] Re: Is FD Connect Timeout the correct approach

2018-11-15 Thread Raymond Norton
On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 8:47:41 AM UTC-6, Raymond Norton wrote: > My new Bareos setup is working fine but jobs stack up when a client PC is > down. I would like for Bareos to try 5 minutes or less and move on to the > next job. I added FD Connect Timeout 1 to the dir config but it did no