Philipp Steinkrueger wrote:
> Hi Kern,
>
>
> thanx for your reply. i see these options are not supported, so
> it seems my idea cannot be realized... anyway, have you read
> my other post and got my idea ? if i am right than my concept would
> minimze data loss about 50% in case of a burn down. for me that
> seems to be a too great deal not to try to realize it. or am fighting
> against
> windmills here and there is an easier way to do it ? i would love
> to hear about it, please...
I'm not sure I see what you're after here. In general, it would be a
bad idea -- and increase the amount of data to back up -- to make a
differential against anything BUT the latest full backup. I utterly
fail to see how intentionally running a differential against an older
Full backup would (even potentially) reduce data loss. If you're going
to make a newer Full backup and then pretend you didn't, why make the
newer Full?
You would also then need to be able to tell Bacula to restore the older
Full backup instead of the more recent one, and there'd be a lot of
other ramifications .... this is a can of worms I don't think you
really want to get into.
--
Phil Stracchino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Renaissance Man, Unix generalist, Perl hacker
Mobile: 603-216-7037 Landline: 603-886-3518
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
