Victor Hugo dos Santos wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:21 AM, Kevin Keane <subscription AT kkeane DOT com> 
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>   
>>  Notes:  This feature may only makes sense for jobs and files, maybe not for 
>> volumes.
>>         I haven't fully thought through the implications yet.
>>         The interaction between "Keep Copies" and "Volume Retention"
>>         needs to be defined.
>>         A possible alternate implementation might be to have a relative
>>         retention time instead of the number of copies: keep a backup until
>>         two days after the next full backup. I believe that "Keep Copies" is
>>         better, though, because the relative retention time mechanism would 
>> not
>>         allow for an easy mechanism to specify that you want to keep several
>>         full backups before expiring the oldest one.
>>     
>
> well, yesterday I was thinking about this theme and the idea is great.
> but, exist a problem, for example:
>
> imagine if I have a backup retention period of 6 months (for full
> backup for example) and I setup director to run 1 full backup on month
> (in six months I have 6 backup):
>
>       - if for any motive I run a manual full backup and I have
> configured Keep Copies in 6. so, the director mark the first backup as
> purged/pruned. and now, I have 2 full backups of this months and 5
> full backups of last 5 months
>
>        - If I run a 4 manual backups in the same day. Now I have 4
> full backup of the same day and 2 full backups (one of this month and
> other of 2 moths ago).
>
> and if I need restore a job/file of 3 o more moths ago ??
>
> understand ?
>   
I think you understand exactly how this feature is supposed to behave. 
The funny thing is that what you see as a problem is actually exactly 
what I would like to have accomplished: if you run a manual full backup 
in the middle of the month, I *want* the oldest to be thrown away (and 
no longer take up space). This is because for me, the main issue is to 
have multiple recent backups to fall back on, in case the latest one for 
some reason is corrupted.

Your needs simply are different - if your focus is on being able to 
restore the backup from a particular point in time, then, you are right, 
using the proposed new feature is not for you. You would simply not use 
the corresponding options, and bacula should then behave exactly as it 
always has, with time-based retention times.

-- 
Kevin Keane
Owner
The NetTech
Find the Uncommon: Expert Solutions for a Network You Never Have to Think About

Office: 866-642-7116
http://www.4nettech.com

This e-mail and attachments, if any, may contain confidential and/or 
proprietary information. Please be advised that the unauthorized use or 
disclosure of the information is strictly prohibited. The information herein is 
intended only for use by the intended recipient(s) named above. If you have 
received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
permanently delete the e-mail and any copies, printouts or attachments thereof.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users