In the message dated: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 06:25:43 -0700,
The pithy ruminations from Stephen Thompson on
[Re: [Bacula-users] can file retention be job rather than client based?] were:
=>
=> Thanks Kern.
=>
=> I think given the limited nature of his need, I may use a postrun script
On 2018-04-11 01:59, Kern Sibbald wrote:
I have never used two Client definitions to backup the same machine, but
in principle it would work fine.
The closest I have is a "cluster ip" floating between two machines, with
3 client/job definitions: one for each physical machine (backing up /etc
Thanks Kern.
I think given the limited nature of his need, I may use a postrun script
to simply wipe database records out of band.
Also if I did use multi-client definitions, I would need to use the same
pool as they all go to the same monthly tapes.
Stephen
On 4/10/18 11:59 PM, Kern Sib
Hello Stephen,
What you are asking for, as you suspect, does not exist and implementing
it would be a bit problematic because every Job would need to keep it's
own retention period. For one client, there can be any number of Jobs
-- typically thousands. Thus the catalog would grow faster (mo
Thanks... Yeah, I'm leaning towards a post or pre job script that
actually prunes (or more likely purges) the file records I need to jettison.
Stephen
On 4/7/18 3:38 AM, Heitor Faria wrote:
Hello Stefaphen,
I believe the answer is no, but as a happy bacula user for 10 years I am
somewhat
s/Stefaphen/Stephen/
Sorry for the typo. When you type as Joe Satriani playing "Speed of Light" this
might happens. lol
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org!
Hello Stefaphen,
> I believe the answer is no, but as a happy bacula user for 10 years I am
> somewhat surprised at the lack of flexibility.
Alternative solutions with proprietary catalog data are much more inflexible.
> The scenarios is this: A fileserver (1 client) with dozens of large
> (siz
