Bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] Full job copied to a secondary location where it was marked as incremental

2017-02-17 13:30:23
Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Full job copied to a secondary location where it was marked as incremental
From: Martin Simmons <martin AT lispworks DOT com>
To: Martin Simmons <martin AT lispworks DOT com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:29:37 GMT
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:24:38 GMT, Martin Simmons said:
> 
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:36:23 +0100, Josip Deanovic said:
> > 
> > Hi everyone!
> > 
> > I have observed something related to copying jobs I found strange
> > and I would like to hear what other people have to say about it.
> > 
> > 
> > I have recycled one volume containing a full backup of some job.
> > After that I have manually run that job and bacula automatically
> > promoted a job from incremental to full job because there were no
> > previous full jobs available and the job finished successfully.
> > 
> > After that I have run copy job using SQLQuery selection type and
> > the selection pattern I am using correctly found the latest full
> > backup of the job in question.
> > 
> > The copy of the job run successfully and everything is fine with
> > the entries in the database. The copy of the job is going to the
> > secondary location and naturally there is additional bunch of
> > volumes (actually files since I am using file storage).
> > 
> > However, few weeks later I have used bls tool on the volumes in
> > the secondary location (place where copied jobs go) and I have
> > found that unlike the original job in the volume on the primary
> > backup location, the volume in the secondary backup location showed
> > an entry which indicated that the copied job was incremental instead
> > of full.
> > 
> > Database entries are fine as well as the bls list of the volume
> > from the primary backup location.
> > 
> > 
> > Is there a theory that could explain why is the copy of the full
> > backup job copied to the secondary location marked as incremental
> > copy inside the volume while the original job is marked as full in
> > the volume on the primary backup location as well as in the database?
> > 
> > Normally this job in the volume on the secondary location should
> > be marked as full as it is the case with other such jobs.
> 
> It is similar for my copy jobs (though the level is Differential instead of
> Incremental), so it looks like a bug worth reporting at
> http://bugs.bacula.org/.
> 
> I see that it also showed "Diff" in the output of "status dir" when running
> the copy job.
> 
> FWIW, Differential is the Level in my JobDefs.

I just found one job that says Level=F in the bls output.  This is a job (my
catalog backup) where I use level = Full in Job definition, so it looks like
it is using the effective level in the original Job definition rather than the
JobDefs.

__Martin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users