I made a complete re-install of my file/backup server, from FC5 to CentOS (RHEL) 5. At this time, I also upgraded Bacula from 1.38.11 to 2.0.3, the latest stable release available as rpms.
My configuration uses RunAfterJob to invoke a shell script that emails the bootstap file to me. The idea is to get a copy of the bootstrap file immediately stored somewhere outside the physical backup server. This used to work (yes, I checked the file contents of the old emails) in the older system. However, after upgrade to 2.0.3, the RunAfterJob emails me the bootsrap file of the previous run of this backup job, which means that the order of writing the bootsrap file and execution of the runafterjob command has changed. Otherwise I propably wouldn't have noticed this at all, but I started investigating why I didn't receive the email after the very first backup - the file couldn't be emailed since it didn't exist yet. After the following runs, I now keep receiving the one-step-too-old file. Director conf file has the following in job definition ---- Schedule = "WeeklyCycle" Write Bootstrap = "/var/bacula/dogbert.bsr" RunAfterJob = "/etc/bacula/after_dogbert" ---- /etc/bacula/after_dogbert that is referred above is essentially this: ---- #!/bin/sh # Emails bootstrap /usr/bin/nail -s Dogbert-Bootstrap-S -a /var/bacula/dogbert.bsr [EMAIL PROTECTED] </dev/null >/dev/null ---- This is (part of) what I got into log after the first run of this job: ---- 30-Jun 01:41 dogbert-dir: AfterJob: run command "/etc/bacula/after_dogbert" 30-Jun 01:41 dogbert-dir: AfterJob: /var/bacula/dogbert.bsr: No such file or directory Scheduled time: 30-Jun-2007 01:05:00 Start time: 30-Jun-2007 01:05:04 End time: 30-Jun-2007 01:41:10 ---- This makes me think, that there has been a code change from 1.38 to 2.0 that changes the order in which RunAfterJob and WriteBootstrap are processed. I find the old order more logical - RunAfter really meant running after everything(?) else was done. Could some of the developers confirm if there has been an accidental or intentional change on this, and is it reasonable to expect it to start behaving in the old way again (or has it already been fixed in 2.1 tree, maybe)? Regards, Timo ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
