On May 4, 2011, at 3:26 AM, Graham Keeling wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:11:24AM +0200, Hugo Letemplier wrote:
>> 2011/4/29 Jérôme Blion <jerome.blion AT free DOT fr>:
>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:33:48 +0200, Hugo Letemplier
>>> <hugo.let.35 AT gmail DOT com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> After the job ran many times: I have the following volume <=> job
>>> matching
>>>> Vol name   Level      Time
>>>> Test1         Full        15:50
>>>> 324            Inc         16:00
>>>> 325            Inc         16:10
>>>> 326            Inc         16:20
>>>> 324            Inc         16:30
>>>> Test2         Full        16:40
>>>> 325            Inc         16:50
>>>> 326            Inc         17:00
>>>> 
>>>> This is problematic because Vol324 is recycled instead of creating a new
>>>> one
>>>> I am not sure to understand the various retention periods : File, job,
>>>> volume
>>>> I think that I can increase the retention times but the problem will
>>>> always be the same.
>>>> ex : if I keep my incremental one hour then my first ones will always
>>>> be purged first
>>>> In a good strategy you purge the full sequence of incremental at the
>>>> same time because you need to recycle you volume and don't want to
>>>> keep a recent volume (incremental) without the previous ones.
>>> 
>>> You would waste your tape/disk space.
>>> 
>>>> To do that I imagine that I need to create one pool per day and reduce
>>>> progressively the retention periods. It doesn't makes sense !
>>>>  I turned the problem on all its sides but I cant find a good
>>>> solution. Maybe the other retention period are the solution but I
>>>> didn't succeeded ?
>>>> Thanks in advance
>>> 
>>> That means that your upper backup levels should have greater retentions to
>>> be sure that at any time, you can use the full + diff + inc if needed.
>>> Keeping incremental without full backup can be useful to restore only
>>> specific files.
>> Yes, but this problem is the same between incremental backups:
>> Lots of people recommended me to use one pool per level:
>> It works for Full and differentials, but not for inc pool
>> Maybe one inc-pool per "incremental run of a scheduling cycle" should
>> be good ? But it 's not simple
>> I think that a new feature that add dependency between various job
>> levels for the next versions of bacula could be cool.
>> The idea is to allow pruning only for volume/jobs that aren't needed
>> by other ones whatever are the retention time.
>> As a consequence : you can prune a full only (((if the differential is
>> pruned) if the XXX incrementals are pruned) if the last incremental is
>> pruned )
>> So you you can say that the maximum retention time for a full is at
>> least equal to the retention time of the last inc + the delay between
>> the full and the this last inc so you have something like this :
>> full  : ========================>>>>>>>>
>> inc  :   =========>>>>>
>> inc  :     =========>>>>
>> inc  :       =========>>>
>> inc  :         =========>>
>> inc  :           =========>
>> inc  :             =========
>> diff  :               ================>
>> inc  :                 =========>>>>>
>> inc  :                   =========>>>>
>> inc  :                     =========>>>
>> inc  :                       =========>>
>> inc  :                         =========>
>> inc  :                           =========
>> diff  :                             ================>
>> inc  :                               =========>>>>>
>> inc  :                                 =========>>>>
>> inc  :                                   =========>>>
>> inc  :                                     =========>>
>> inc  :                                       =========>
>> inc  :                                         =========
>> 
>> and not like that :
>> diff  : ==================>
>> inc  :   =======>
>> inc  :     =======>
>> inc  :       =======>
>> 
>> What do you think about such a feature ?
> 
> A while ago, I made a patch that does it. Nobody seemed to want it though.
> http://www.adsm.org/lists/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00308.html


Just because you didn't find anyone that wanted it does not make it a bad idea.

Ideas are sometimes difficult to comprehend.  I didn't follow the above in a 30 
second scanning....

If you think it's a good idea. Pursue it.  Give examples.  Describe the issues, 
in brief, and then in general.  Build a case that others can comprehend with 
minimal effort.

If you think it's a good idea, something will come of it.  But nothing will 
come of it if you don't persist.
-- 
Dan Langille - http://langille.org


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software
The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network 
management toolset available today.  Delivers lowest initial 
acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users