Hi there Gavin. Thanks for the answer.
It seems like I have misunderstood something here.

You say that it only requires about 1.4GB more disk space to have
F+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+F2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2
where F2 is a VirtualFull backup.

Do you mean that a Virtual Backup does not take up more space on the
disk? It's just a catalog entry? That's really great if it's true!
I thought that one Full and one VirtualFull will take up 287GB*2 in space.


On 12/08/2009 10:46 AM, Gavin McCullagh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009, Niklas Hagman wrote:
>
>   
>> Thank you James for that answer. As I expected, 2 full backups seems to
>> be needed to exist to be able to have 2 weeks possibility to restore.
>>
>> But what about this:
>> (F = full, I= incremental. Day 1 to day 13.)
>> F+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I
>> Then merge the oldest incremental with the full one, creating something
>> like this:
>> F+I+F+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I
>> I can then remove the first F+I without loosing my 2 weeks possibility
>> to restore.
>>
>> Is this possible?
>>     
> I'm not sure, but is it really worth the complexity and extra work on your
> backup server (which will have to read and rewrite a full backup every
> night)?  You could just do:
>
> day 15: F+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+F
> day 16: F+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+F+I
> ....
> day 28: F+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+F2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2 
> (recycle)
> day 29: F2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2+I2 
>
> The only extra space required is that to store the incrementals which is
> apparently about 1.4GB.  In return, you'll have backups for extra (14 < i <
> 28) days depending on the day of the fortnight which might be useful at
> some point.
>
>   
>> I have played around with "run job= level=VirtualFull" and have notice
>> that it always create a full backup last in the chain. Like this
>> F+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+I+F. Maybe it exist some parameters so I can
>> control this more?
>>     
> I think the general principle of the virtualfull backup (as least as I've
> understood it) is that you can avoid loading your live server running a
> full backup every 2 weeks (in this case).  It's not really about saving
> space and I really don't think the above is worth the hassle.
>
> If you're using SATA hard disks and complicating things to skimp on 2GB
> then one might be inclined to question how much you value this data?  It's
> your choice of course though :-)
>
> Gavin
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Return on Information:
> Google Enterprise Search pays you back
> Get the facts.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Bacula-users mailing list
> Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
>   

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return on Information:
Google Enterprise Search pays you back
Get the facts.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users