On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 1:54 AM Radosław Korzeniewski < rados...@korzeniewski.net> wrote:
> Hello, > > śr., 29 sty 2020 o 17:51 William Muriithi <will...@perasotech.com> > napisał(a): > >> >> > How would this make sense considering it was intentionally configured? > > > I think I do miss your point. Why anyone on Earth would like to configure > a backup job in such a way that the next job will intentionally run when a > previous job did not complete and intentionally setup cancelation of the > duplicated job? > IMVHO if I knew that my backup job is running for i.e. 8H then I'll never > schedule next backup job on 4H period and setup a cancellation of the > duplicate job because it will cancel every second job by design. It would > be insane, right? > One example of a situation where this actually makes sense is if your full backups take a lot longer than your incrementals. For example, I have some workstations where a full takes three days, but an incremental takes only a few minutes. I'd rather have the incremental run every day (and occasionally get skipped when a full backup is running) than limit myself to only one backup every three days. -- David Brodbeck System Administrator, Department of Mathematics University of California, Santa Barbara
_______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
