Hi,
07.07.2008 19:46, Hemant Shah wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I ran my first production backup of bacula last weekend. I did a full
> backup to tape, then full backup to disk. Next was incremental backup. Bacula
> said that it was doing incremental backup but it actually did a full backup.
> I am running bacula 2.4.0. Here are the e-mails I received.
>
> Fullbackup:
>
> Build OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu redhat
> JobId: 39
> Job: lidp11-BackupToDisk.2008-07-04_21.04.42
> Backup Level: Full
> Client: "lidp11-fd" 2.4.0 (04Jun08)
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu,redhat,
> FileSet: "lidp11 Disk set" 2008-07-04 21:04:05
> Pool: "lidp11-FullBackupDiskPool" (From Job FullPool
> override)
> Storage: "lidp11-File" (From Pool resource)
> Scheduled time: 04-Jul-2008 21:04:01
> Start time: 05-Jul-2008 18:14:14
> End time: 06-Jul-2008 05:01:39
> Elapsed time: 10 hours 47 mins 25 secs
> Priority: 10
> FD Files Written: 2,417,797
> SD Files Written: 2,417,797
> FD Bytes Written: 60,253,728,260 (60.25 GB)
> SD Bytes Written: 60,550,530,761 (60.55 GB)
> Rate: 1551.1 KB/s
> Software Compression: 52.7 %
> VSS: no
> Storage Encryption: no
> Volume name(s): Full-lidp11-2008-07-05-18:14:13
> Volume Session Id: 39
> Volume Session Time: 1215182293
> Last Volume Bytes: 60,661,172,712 (60.66 GB)
> Non-fatal FD errors: 0
> SD Errors: 0
> FD termination status: OK
> SD termination status: OK
> Termination: Backup OK
>
>
> Incremental Backup:
>
> Build OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu redhat
> JobId: 70
> Job: lidp11-BackupToDisk.2008-07-06_22.00.30
> Backup Level: Incremental, since=2008-07-05 18:14:14
> Client: "lidp11-fd" 2.4.0 (04Jun08)
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu,redhat,
> FileSet: "lidp11 Disk set" 2008-07-04 21:04:05
> Pool: "lidp11-IncrBackupDiskPool" (From Job IncPool
> override)
> Storage: "lidp11-File" (From Pool resource)
> Scheduled time: 06-Jul-2008 22:00:00
> Start time: 06-Jul-2008 22:05:25
> End time: 07-Jul-2008 06:26:42
> Elapsed time: 8 hours 21 mins 17 secs
> Priority: 10
> FD Files Written: 2,096,136
> SD Files Written: 2,096,136
> FD Bytes Written: 58,910,683,776 (58.91 GB)
> SD Bytes Written: 59,167,747,657 (59.16 GB)
> Rate: 1958.7 KB/s
> Software Compression: 52.4 %
> VSS: no
> Storage Encryption: no
> Volume name(s): Incr-lidp11-2008-07-06-22:05:25
> Volume Session Id: 68
> Volume Session Time: 1215182293
> Last Volume Bytes: 59,271,542,084 (59.27 GB)
> Non-fatal FD errors: 0
> SD Errors: 0
> FD termination status: OK
> SD termination status: OK
> Termination: Backup OK
>
>
> As you can see the amount of data backups is almost the same (60GB).
> This was done over a long weekend, so very few files changed on this
> filesystem.
As there are some jobs between those two you reported I suspect there
was another attempt to run a full backup which was cancelled (either
manually or automatically) to run a backup while the first full was
still active.
This would have left an aborted or canceled full job in the catalog,
forcing the incremental to get upgraded. Is that possible?
Arno
> Hemant Shah
> E-mail: hjrrs AT yahoo DOT com
>
--
Arno Lehmann
IT-Service Lehmann
www.its-lehmann.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW!
Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project,
along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness
and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
|
