Sorry for my ambiguity. I meant versions of files.
I don't have access to Retrospect now to check on this point. I will
re-read the documentation. At first look "backups" could be interpreted as
volumes or files. My understanding was files but now I'm not so sure.
Regards
Chris Wilkinson
On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, 2:28 p.m. Martin Simmons, <mar...@lispworks.com> wrote:
> I can't decide what you mean by "the last n >=1 versions" (versions of
> files
> or versions of backups?).
>
> Yes, with m=30 you could set a volume retention time of 31 days. If you
> also
> set a volume use duration of 7 days, then you would have 2 volumes.
> However,
> I would not use n=1 because you risk losing your only backup due to media
> failure or if your backup is delayed for a few days due to vacation.
>
> Yes, deleted files will be unrecoverable after 31 days (or probably 60 days
> because the previous backup will in fact be retained until the volume is
> needed for the next backup).
>
> I've not found any evidence that Retrospect keeps n copies of deleted files
> forever. The 2 descriptions of "Staged Backup Strategy" in
> https://www.retrospect.com/uk/documentation/user_guide/win/management say
> that
> you have a "10 day rolling window" for quick local restores and the
> description of "Grooming Options for Disk Backup Sets" talks about backups
> for
> each source, not individual files.
>
> __Martin
>
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 21:57:38 +0100, Chris Wilkinson said:
> >
> > My recollection is that Retrospect retains the last n >=1 versions for
> disk based backup.
> >
> > On the last point, to keep 1 latest copy (n=1), I could run a full job
> every m=30 days and set a volume retention time of 31 days?
> >
> > If a file were deleted or lost for whatever reason, then wouldn’t it be
> pruned out after 31 days and then be unrecoverable?
> >
> > The manual pages suggested seem to describe a scheme that will retain
> files for up to 6 months. There wasn’t a requirement to retain for any
> longer.
> >
> > Regards
> > Chris Wilkinson
> >
> > > On 3 Sep 2018, at 11:29, Martin Simmons <mar...@lispworks.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Does Retrospect actually retain the last version of every file
> indefinitely?
> > > Or does it retain the last version of every backup indefinitely? I
> suspect it
> > > is the latter.
> > >
> > > The difference is that you cannot restore a deleted file after the
> last backup
> > > that contained it has been deleted.
> > >
> > > It is easy to configure Bacula to keep the last n copies of each
> Bacula job.
> > > You just need to run a job with level=full every m days and set the
> retention
> > > periods to at least n times m. See
> > > http://www.bacula.org/9.2.x-manuals/en/main/Automated_Disk_Backup.html
> for
> > > example.
> > >
> > > __Martin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>>> On Sun, 2 Sep 2018 14:51:18 +0100, Chris Wilkinson said:
> > >>
> > >> Many thanks to all.
> > >>
> > >> I previously used Retrospect and this had a facility to set the
> number of
> > >> versions to be retained 1+. Earlier versions would be removed through
> a
> > >> scheduled "groom" job where storage space would be reclaimed. This
> meant
> > >> that there would always be exactly 1+ versions retained indefinitely.
> > >>
> > >> It doesn't appear that that behaviour can be replicated in Bacula, the
> > >> nearest being to retain everything always.
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >> Chris Wilkinson
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, 1:52 p.m. Dan Langille, <d...@langille.org>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>> On Aug 28, 2018, at 2:54 AM, Chris Wilkinson <
> winstonia...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> One of my requirements for backups is that the last version of every
> > >>> file should remain in the backup storage indefinitely or at least
> for a
> > >>> long time.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Could I achieve this by writing "File Retention = 10 years" in the
> pool
> > >>> or client definition?
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes. But you'll also need Volume and Job retention also set to 10
> years if
> > >>> you want to easily restore that data.
> > >>>
> > >>> This will keep all records, not just the latest.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, this will use more database records, but my view is that this
> is a
> > >>> cheap price to pay.
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, as mentioned by others, does this requirement mean that a file
> > >>> deleted 6 years ago needs to be kept for another 4 years?
> > >>>
> > >>> You'll need to clarify that 10 years meets the "indefinitely"
> requirement.
> > >>>
> > >>> Given the originally stated requirements, it seems your only
> solution is
> > >>> not to ever recycle volumes or allow the Catalog to be pruned.
> > >>>
> > >>>> My concern is that, if this is possible, then it would stop
> automatic
> > >>> volume truncation and recycling and eventually result in out of space
> > >>> storage errors.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, you need to have enough storage.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Dan Langille - BSDCan / PGCon
> > >>> d...@langille.org
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
