Hi,

* Alan Brown

> The only way I've found for restores is to make sure they're the same
> priority as the rest of the jobs.
> 
> On a practical note - Job priorities are _very_ useful for ensuring
> that a particular job is the only one running when it runs - eg
> during catalog backups.

I can see the value of that, yes.  I wish we could have both this and a
priority value that only affects the position in queue, though.  I'll
see if I can submit a feature request.

> We make our users jump through hoops for restores - mainly because we
> don't want them to become dependent on the things. Grabbing a file
> off backup tape should be last resort. As part of this hoop jumping
> we enforce a minimum waiting period for restore requests (a few
> hours) which is usually long enough to allow for full execution
> queues or higher priority jobs.

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to enforce this, since I have to
deal with my colleagues instead of (l)users...

It also doesn't help solving the problem where I need to start jobs a
few hours after all the others, and also make sure they finish as fast
as possible, due to those jobs having a narrower backup window than the
rest of the jobs.

Regards,
-- 
Tore Anderson

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users