Am 05.07.2012 11:44, schrieb Gandalf Corvotempesta:
> Il giorno gio, 05/07/2012 alle 11.32 +0200, Mario Moder ha scritto:
>> If one job must finish before another starts, you should use lower
>> priorities (higher numbers) for the "later" jobs as you already tried.
>>
>> If the jobs should only _start_ in a specific order, no matter when they
>> finish you could just set them to different starting minutes (1:00h,
>> 1:01h, 1:02h, etc) with the same priority. IMHO that's a very vague
>> concept and it doesn't scale.
>
> Actually I have 90 jobs scheduled with same priority and starting
> time at 00:30
>
> One of this jobs will take 9 hours to complete. Actually, this time
> consuming job is the 80 in the list and will start at 09:00 in the
> morning, after other 79 (ran in batch of 8, due to Maximum Concurrent
> Jobs)
>
> I would like to move this job to be ran at first, but I can't use
> priority because will block any other job for at least 9 hours.
>
> So, should I set schedule time for this job one minute less than
> others ?

Yes that's what we do here too in our setup for long-running jobs. This 
way, they just run parallel to the others.

Perhaps you should use data-spooling for parallel running jobs. See the 
documentation for "Maximum Concurrent Jobs" in the director resource.

Mario


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users