Hi,

22.04.2008 11:37, Silver Salonen wrote:
> On Monday 07 April 2008 16:22, Arno Lehmann wrote:
>> 07.04.2008 15:05, Silver Salonen wrote:
>>> On Monday 07 April 2008 10:37, Arno Lehmann wrote:
>>>> 07.04.2008 06:04, Seth Miller wrote:
>>>>> How can I force Bacula to complete a job before it starts a new one
>>>>> for the same client?
>>>> You can't, now, I believe.
>>> But you can automatically cancel the incremental job that would be 
> upgraded to 
>>> duplicate full. I'm doing it with:
>>>
>>> JobDefs {
>>>         ...
>>>         Max Wait Time = 12h
>>> }
>>>
>> Well, if you're using that approach, and usually have jobs run 
>> concurrently (so normally the jobs don't have to wait at all) I'd set 
>> the wait time rather low, like 5 minutes. Otherwise, if a job takes 35 
>> hours, you'll end up with another full backup...
>>
>> Also, the "Incremental Max Wait Time" seems to be broken... at least 
>> that's what I read on -devel by Eric Bollengier.
> 
> Actually yes, right you are, that's not a solution. Especially as the "Max 
> Wait Time" causes the running backups to be cancelled after the specified 
> time (I complained about this in a separate thread).
> 
> Right now it came to me that the same check could be done with "run before 
> job" script. A quick example (check-job.sh):
> =====
> jobName="$1"
> jobId="$2"
> if ( echo "status dir" | bconsole | grep -v "${jobId}" | grep "Job 
> ${jobName}.* is running" ); then
>         exit 1
> else
>         exit 0
> fi
> =====
> The script should be ran with "Run Before Job = check-job.sh '%n' '%i'".
> 
> Some notes after testing that solution:
> * the same job must be able to run concurrently, because "run before job" is 
> executed before starting backup, not when the job is scheduled
> * user of bacula-dir (running process) must be able to access bconsole.conf
> * the "Run Before Job" may be used next to other "run script" directives
> 
> Any thoughts on that approach?

For now, this looks like a good solution. The prerequisites should be 
easy to satisfy... the only thing I'd do is elimintae one pipe through 
grep by using a more complex regex as the search pattern. But that's 
not essential. You could even save the if... then... else... fi clause 
if you inverted the search :-)

I at least like this approach!

Arno


> --
> Silver
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference 
> Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. 
> Use priority code J8TL2D2. 
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
> _______________________________________________
> Bacula-users mailing list
> Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
> 

-- 
Arno Lehmann
IT-Service Lehmann
www.its-lehmann.de

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference 
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. 
Use priority code J8TL2D2. 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users