[Bacula-users] Bacula Verify Jobs

Bacula manual is not so clear about Verify Jobs. What is the best practice to implement verify jobs for any backup job ? Can somebody show some example? Thanks Wanderlei -- Monitor Your Dynamic Infrastructure at Any

Re: [Bacula-users] Use Copy Incremental Job as Weekly Job

Dear Ana, can you help me one more? I'm worried that I can't do what I want: As backup solution I would like to have: - 6 daily (incremental) - retention 7 days - 4 weekly (differential) - retention 30 days - 3 Monthly (VFull) - retention 90 days I have to start with a Full, during the month

Re: [Bacula-users] Use Copy Incremental Job as Weekly Job

You are right I can't do nothing with the Oldest Incremental without the previous ones.. My solution is based only on Incremental because I would like to physically copy every day the DB and this volumes on a second site to recover the jobs on DR machines. I have to modify my solution and

[Bacula-users] Help with Virtual Full usages

Hi all, I read for the 4° times the documentation: *VIRTAUL FULL -> "It permits you to consolidate the previous Full backup plus the most recent Differential backup and any subsequent Incremental backups into a new Full backup."* This means that the new VF (VirtualFull) is not like a real

[Bacula-users] is 7.2 ready for prime time?

All, I typically patch bacula pretty frequently, but I saw the somewhat unusual notice on the latest release notes that warns it may not be ready for use in production. How stable is it? I don't really have the resources to test this out, but rather would have to go straight to production

Re: [Bacula-users] Help with Virtual Full usages

On 24.9.2015 15:30, Carlo Filippetto wrote: > Hi all, > > I read for the 4° times the documentation: > > /VIRTAUL FULL -> "It permits you to consolidate the previous Full backup > plus the most recent Differential backup and any subsequent Incremental > backups into a new Full backup."/ > > >

Re: [Bacula-users] is 7.2 ready for prime time?

Hello, We put a caution message in every release, particularly for new features which are generally tested but not always tested in production. Normally most of the issues turn up for non-Linux distributions where we either have not tested or have tested less than Linux. Version 7.2.0 is as

Re: [Bacula-users] Issue with second writing to tape

I use 64bits system. I tried with other version of file daemon but still the same, stopped after 20GB 24-Sep 18:46 buffer-bacula-sd JobId 121: Fatal error: Unable to write EOF. ERR=dev.c:1551 ioctl MTWEOF error on "DTL01" (/dev/nst0). ERR=Input/output error. 24-Sep 18:46

Re: [Bacula-users] PKI Signatures working?

Hello Ana, I have not followed this thread in detail, but if the user wants more security in verifying the FD, it is possible to enable TLSAuthentication without enabling TLS on transmitted data, and in that case, in addition to the regular MD5 authentication Bacula will do TLSAuthentication

Re: [Bacula-users] PKI Signatures working?

Hello Kern, Thank you. I did not remember to mention about the TLS Authentication. And this is a possibility of verifying the client (peer/FD) before data exchange between daemons. I thought that Markus was talking about data authenticity and not FD authentication. In the first case, the goal is

Re: [Bacula-users] is 7.2 ready for prime time?

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 08:40:05AM -0700, Stephen Thompson wrote: > > All, > > I typically patch bacula pretty frequently, but I saw the somewhat > unusual notice on the latest release notes that warns it may not be > ready for use in production. How stable is it? I don't really have the >