> This was somewhat a roundabout way of answering your question. The > more > direct answer to your question is: you suggestion has merit. I can > see how > at least in the current situation you describe, which is already a > Bacula > abberation, it would improve the outcome. The problem is that I need > to > think about this a lot more because it would change a rather > fundamental way > that Bacula currently works, and I am not sure what kinds of surprises > it > will give us. When I don't fully understand what it will do (current > situation) I find it is better to wait. I think that my proposed > solution > above will resolve your problem by allowing you to keep the Virtual > Full in > the same Disk Pool, and then would allow you to continue doing > Incremental > backups -- this was my original idea in implementing Virtual Full -- > for the > moment, it is just not working correctly. Hopefully my proposal would > make > your request almost moot. > > Does that make sense to you? >
Did I send you my patch? I've been using that for a few days and it works perfectly for me, but having thought about it a bit more I can see that it might not work for others. My reason for using VirtualFull is so that I can do a Full backup to disk once a week (or less often) and just do incremental in between. The advantage of incremental is that they can be run pretty fast and with much less load compared to full backups, so I can do them a few times a day. I can then do a virtual full backup to tape, and the tapes become a disaster recovery solution (maybe also to restore files which have expired from disk, depending on the retention time of each medium), but are not generally used to do restores. This is what we do at a few clients with Backup Exec. So when I do a restore, I don't want to have to muck around with tapes which are (hopefully) not on site, I only ever want to use the disk backups which are always on site. Because I am using virtualfull to create a tape backup to take off site, I really do want the media to be in another pool, so the current situation (+ my patch) works perfectly for me. That is different to using virtualfull to 'update' your full backup based on subsequent incrementals, which I now understand was the original requirement (I think?) I think you could get the best of both worlds by introducing the ability to specify a set of source pools for doing virtualfull backups, and the destination pool. Eg: "run job=xxx level=virtualfull pool=tape sourcepools="disk_incremental,disk_full". The NextPool would go away. Maybe also an option to purge the source jobs automatically too for where you are consolidating jobs. Just some ideas... James ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list Bacula-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
