Re: [Bacula-users] A problem with Job files listings in bacularis

[Mehrdad R. <meh...@am...>]

Thanx Marcin, Appreciate it :)

Regards /Mehrdad

On 2025-02-18 16:46, Marcin Haba wrote:
> Hi Mehrdad,
>
> OK, thanks for this test and confirmation.
>
> There isn't any directive to speed it up. Increasing timeout value
> isn't any solution here either.
>
> I will check how it could be fixed and let you know.
>
> Best regards,
> Marcin Haba (gani)
>
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 16:36, Mehrdad Ravanbod
> <meh...@am...> wrote:
>> Hi Marcin
>>
>> Thanks for responding
>>
>> U seem to be correct, I tried another backup with a much smaller
>> filecount (37000 vs 430000) and this time i did got a file list when i
>> chose SIZE and MTIME, strangely though the sort choice DESCENDING did
>> not show up, only ASCENDING
>>
>> Is there any directive that can fix this or should we wait for a fix in
>> a future version??
>>
>> Regards /Mehrdad
>>
>> On 2025-02-18 10:14, Marcin Haba wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 09:37, Mehrdad Ravanbod
>>> <meh...@am...> wrote:
>>>> I seem to have a problem with the new version of Bacularis, when
>>>> reviewing a job, one can check the job files and there is a couple of
>>>> drop down lists that allow us to sort the job files according to size
>>>> and MTIME, default is just FILE
>>>> This worked earlier, but on installing a new server with latest
>>>> bacularis, it seems that the SIZE and MTIME sorting parameters do not
>>>> work anymore, only the default FILE parameter. Is this a bug in the new
>>>> version of bacularis (I am running 4.0.0 but i think it could be later,
>>>> downloaded  from bacularis website a couple of weeks ago), or maybe
>>>> there is something wrong in my installation??
>>> Hi Mehrdad,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the report. Yes, this sorting on the job files tab is a bit specific.
>>>
>>> Sorting by mtime and by size requires a bit more time than sorting by
>>> file. If a job contains many files then this mtime and size sorting
>>> request can time out and the sorting can not work.
>>>
>>> You mentioned that you set up a new server. It can also have meaning
>>> if it has different parameters than the original server.
>>>
>>> I would propose to do a quick test to check if it is this case. Could
>>> you try to use this function with a job containing a bit smaller
>>> number of files than this job causing a problem. Is it working now?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Marcin Haba (gani)
>> --
>> ________________________________________________________
>>
>> Ampfield Aktiebolag
>> Mehrdad Ravanbod
>> System administrator
>>
>>
-- 
________________________________________________________

Ampfield Aktiebolag
Mehrdad Ravanbod
System administrator