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 ?
salu2
--
--
Victor Hugo dos Santos
Linux Counter #224399
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|
