One of the reasons for using Bacula is so that you don't have to track what Volumes it is using. It does all the work for you, and if you trust it, you won't need particular Volume labels.
That said, If you really want to use Client based Volume labels, you can, but to do so, the only reasonable way is to work with Pools and either prelabel your Volumes, or use some labeling scheme such as you did. If you do not use Pools, there is no way to absolutely guarantee that Bacula will write on a Volume you have just created. With Pools, at least you can guarantee that it will write on a Volume within a given Pool. There is a whole chapter in the manual describing this for Full, Differential, and Incremental backups, which can be easily extrapolated to Clients. So, in my opinion, it isn't so much a question of a feature being "worse than useless", but rather learning which features will accomplish what you want. On Monday 02 November 2009 04:38:38 Aidan Furlan wrote: > I would certainly consider this a bug. It makes variable expansion worse > than useless because I can no longer trust it to label volumes with the > correct client or date, so that all the volume names are potentially > misleading. To avoid misleading data I have gone back to using > LabelFormat="Vol". -- variable expansion uses outdated data https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/459573 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
