I don't have a lot of time right now, but my main question is "Given enough time and effort, you almost certainly could do this, but should you?"
I don't mean to be a downer, but are you sure screwing around with bacula and "faking" an initial backup condition is worth the risk that you get something wrong and you've "tricked" bacula into thinking things are ok, when they actually aren't and your backups are invalid? Got to run, sorry for lack of details. Robert Gerber 402-237-8692 r...@craeon.net On Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 1:55 PM Gary Dale <g...@extremeground.com> wrote: > On 2025-08-22 14:29, Udo Kaune wrote: > > Am 22.08.25 um 17:05 schrieb Gary Dale: > >> I've been backing up my network using rsync for a long time because > >> I've rarely had a need to go back more than one day to retrieve a > >> file I wanted. However, after my upgrade to Debian 13, that backup > >> has stopped working. Rather than debug that, I figured now would be a > >> good time to implement a more versatile backup. > >> > >> I've used bacula in the past for some business customers, but that > >> was pre-pandemic. My expertise is both dated and rusty. > >> > >> My issue is, can I import my existing backup files into bacula and > >> use them as the basis for future incremental backups? They are > >> basically just copies of the files I want to back up, with the same > >> directory structure but with a different root. My idea is to import > >> them into bacula then switch the nightly backups to the original > >> folders so new backups reflect the changed files only. > >> > >> The reason I want to do this is the rsync backups contain files that > >> may be missing from my current working folders. I don't want to lose > >> them but I also don't want to reverse the rsync to restore them to > >> their original locations. > >> > >> Any help will be appreciated. > > > > Hi Gary, > > > > We are using rsync (very versatile #8-) to store customer data on a > > daily basis. After that Bacula is using the latest version of that > > data to backup to tape. > > > > I understand that you copied the data in concern to a separate storage > > space through rsync. You may very well backup this data using Bacula > > but IMHO you cannot "trick" Bacula into believing that this storage > > space backup is the base "Full" backup for your Incrementals to come > > (from the live data paths). > > > > Your best options are reactivating the rsync mechanism and using > > Bacula on the storage space - or - backup the storage space as it is > > and keep the tape separate, then start to backup from the live paths > > with Bacula directly. In either case your first backup will be a "Full". > > > > HTH, Udo > > > Thanks everyone. I'm thinking perhaps I can trick bacula into thinking > the rsync'd files are the source for the new backup via some file system > magic. So long as the paths are the same, shouldn't bacula treat them as > the same files? > > e.g. my main rsync archive is at /mnt/backup/shares while my live files > are at /home/shares/. If I move the live files temporarily then mount or > link the backup there, would that accomplish what I want? > > It's not as simple as being able to alter the main path of the bacula > target, but would it work? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bacula-users mailing list > Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users >
_______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
