On 06/28/2011 09:32 AM, Phil Stracchino wrote: > On 06/28/11 08:40, John Drescher wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Phil Stracchino<ala...@metrocast.net> >> wrote: >>> Adding a data limit to a Bacula job really won't do a lot to work around >>> the unreliability of the link, it'll just make the job terminate early >>> if you COULD have completed it in one shot. I'm not sure this idea >>> makes sense. >>> >> I think the idea is to terminate early without error. So that the next >> incremental ... can pickup where the full left off. > Oh, I totally get that, yes. I just think it's the wrong way to solve > the problem. It's a Band-Aid approach. > > The better way to solve the problem would be to come up with some kind > of resume-job-from-checkpoint functionality, but that of course would be > a fairly major project. > >
Doesn't that kind of mess up a backup integrity if both incrementals don't cover the same time period ? By definition would the second incremental not have to start over again ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list Bacula-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
