Re: [Bacula-users] 300k+ orphaned file and path records

2017-10-17 Thread Adam Weremczuk
On 16/10/2017 16:23, Alan Brown wrote: use the dbcheck utility to cleanup the database. That's what it's there for (make sure nothing else is running!) Hi Alan, I have no problem being patient and I can leave the job running for days over Xmas. My concern is, no matter how much time I give

Re: [Bacula-users] 300k+ orphaned file and path records

2017-10-17 Thread Alan Brown
On 17/10/17 08:27, Adam Weremczuk wrote: > On 16/10/2017 16:23, Alan Brown wrote: >> >> use the dbcheck utility to cleanup the database. That's what it's >> there for (make sure nothing else is running!) > > Hi Alan, > > I have no problem being patient and I can leave the job running for > days

[Bacula-users] Zimbra Granular Mailboxes Backup and Automatic Restore with Bacula and bpipe Plugin

2017-10-17 Thread Heitor Faria
Hello, Dear Bacula Users, I'm sharing this because lots of people ask about Open Source Zimbra backup and I'm proposing a new approach rather than "backupose" and another script. Any feedback is appreciated. Zimbra backup configuration script

Re: [Bacula-users] 300k+ orphaned file and path records

2017-10-17 Thread Phil Stracchino
On 10/17/17 05:05, Alan Brown wrote: > The reason it's taking so long is that you not tuned your mysql > properly. Out of the box it is only setup for 32MB (yes, MB) systems. As > a result it is writing hundreds of temporary files when deleting records. > MySQL is good at what it's designed for

Re: [Bacula-users] Not Receiving Messages for Read-Only file system

2017-10-17 Thread Josh Fisher
Bill, this seems very likely related to the issue you are seeing when the volume is not in-changer. The re-attempt of the mount in mount.c should probably not be happening at 1 second intervals, or if it is, then it should not log every attempt. Also, at some point it should be pausing the job

Re: [Bacula-users] Not Receiving Messages for Read-Only file system

2017-10-17 Thread Bill Arlofski
On 10/17/2017 09:57 AM, Josh Fisher wrote: > Bill, this seems very likely related to the issue you are seeing when the > volume is not in-changer. The re-attempt of the mount in mount.c should > probably not be happening at 1 second intervals, or if it is, then it should > not log every attempt.