Re: [Bacula-users] Pruning bug in 1.38.5?

[Martin S. <ma...@li...>]

>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:48:48 -0500, Ryan Novosielski <nov...@um...> said:
> 
> Some weeks ago I was going to ask the exact same thing, but what I 
> settled on was keeping job records as long as I'd need to keep the job, 
> file records about the same time (since my retention periods are short 
> -- 2 weeks of data is the SLA that I have), and volumes just long enough 
> so that they'll expire before I want them re-written. My assumption is 
> that this warning that you've pointed out is to keep you from having a 
> year of jobs with files saved for each one, because that could make for 
> a messy database. What I'm NOT sure of is why you'd want to keep jobs 
> any longer than the volume, or even why the functionality is there to 
> keep jobs and volumes for different lengths of time (for the record, 
> this exists in OmniBack too). I'm guessing it's so the jobs are there 
> for tapes that may have expired but have not yet been rewritten.

I find it very useful because it allows tapes in several pools to contain
different ages of backup from the same client/fileset.

Weekly pool tapes are written once a week and recycled after 1 month.
Monthly pool tapes are written once a month and recycled after 1 year.

There is only one job, which changes pool according to the schedule.  To allow
restore from any of the 12 Monthly tapes, the job retention has to be 1 year.
This is greater that the Weekly pool's retention.

A similar thing happens if you have Differential daily jobs in a different
pool that is recycled faster than the Full backup pool(s).

__Martin