Full job copied to a secondary location where it was marked as incremental

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Full job copied to a secondary location where it was marked as incremental

Josip Deanovic
Hi everyone!

I have observed something related to copying jobs I found strange
and I would like to hear what other people have to say about it.


I have recycled one volume containing a full backup of some job.
After that I have manually run that job and bacula automatically
promoted a job from incremental to full job because there were no
previous full jobs available and the job finished successfully.

After that I have run copy job using SQLQuery selection type and
the selection pattern I am using correctly found the latest full
backup of the job in question.

The copy of the job run successfully and everything is fine with
the entries in the database. The copy of the job is going to the
secondary location and naturally there is additional bunch of
volumes (actually files since I am using file storage).

However, few weeks later I have used bls tool on the volumes in
the secondary location (place where copied jobs go) and I have
found that unlike the original job in the volume on the primary
backup location, the volume in the secondary backup location showed
an entry which indicated that the copied job was incremental instead
of full.

Database entries are fine as well as the bls list of the volume
from the primary backup location.


Is there a theory that could explain why is the copy of the full
backup job copied to the secondary location marked as incremental
copy inside the volume while the original job is marked as full in
the volume on the primary backup location as well as in the database?

Normally this job in the volume on the secondary location should
be marked as full as it is the case with other such jobs.


Regards

--
Josip Deanovic

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Full job copied to a secondary location where it was marked as incremental

Martin Simmons
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:36:23 +0100, Josip Deanovic said:
>
> Hi everyone!
>
> I have observed something related to copying jobs I found strange
> and I would like to hear what other people have to say about it.
>
>
> I have recycled one volume containing a full backup of some job.
> After that I have manually run that job and bacula automatically
> promoted a job from incremental to full job because there were no
> previous full jobs available and the job finished successfully.
>
> After that I have run copy job using SQLQuery selection type and
> the selection pattern I am using correctly found the latest full
> backup of the job in question.
>
> The copy of the job run successfully and everything is fine with
> the entries in the database. The copy of the job is going to the
> secondary location and naturally there is additional bunch of
> volumes (actually files since I am using file storage).
>
> However, few weeks later I have used bls tool on the volumes in
> the secondary location (place where copied jobs go) and I have
> found that unlike the original job in the volume on the primary
> backup location, the volume in the secondary backup location showed
> an entry which indicated that the copied job was incremental instead
> of full.
>
> Database entries are fine as well as the bls list of the volume
> from the primary backup location.
>
>
> Is there a theory that could explain why is the copy of the full
> backup job copied to the secondary location marked as incremental
> copy inside the volume while the original job is marked as full in
> the volume on the primary backup location as well as in the database?
>
> Normally this job in the volume on the secondary location should
> be marked as full as it is the case with other such jobs.

It is similar for my copy jobs (though the level is Differential instead of
Incremental), so it looks like a bug worth reporting at
http://bugs.bacula.org/.

I see that it also showed "Diff" in the output of "status dir" when running
the copy job.

FWIW, Differential is the Level in my JobDefs.

__Martin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Full job copied to a secondary location where it was marked as incremental

Martin Simmons
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:24:38 GMT, Martin Simmons said:
>
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:36:23 +0100, Josip Deanovic said:
> >
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > I have observed something related to copying jobs I found strange
> > and I would like to hear what other people have to say about it.
> >
> >
> > I have recycled one volume containing a full backup of some job.
> > After that I have manually run that job and bacula automatically
> > promoted a job from incremental to full job because there were no
> > previous full jobs available and the job finished successfully.
> >
> > After that I have run copy job using SQLQuery selection type and
> > the selection pattern I am using correctly found the latest full
> > backup of the job in question.
> >
> > The copy of the job run successfully and everything is fine with
> > the entries in the database. The copy of the job is going to the
> > secondary location and naturally there is additional bunch of
> > volumes (actually files since I am using file storage).
> >
> > However, few weeks later I have used bls tool on the volumes in
> > the secondary location (place where copied jobs go) and I have
> > found that unlike the original job in the volume on the primary
> > backup location, the volume in the secondary backup location showed
> > an entry which indicated that the copied job was incremental instead
> > of full.
> >
> > Database entries are fine as well as the bls list of the volume
> > from the primary backup location.
> >
> >
> > Is there a theory that could explain why is the copy of the full
> > backup job copied to the secondary location marked as incremental
> > copy inside the volume while the original job is marked as full in
> > the volume on the primary backup location as well as in the database?
> >
> > Normally this job in the volume on the secondary location should
> > be marked as full as it is the case with other such jobs.
>
> It is similar for my copy jobs (though the level is Differential instead of
> Incremental), so it looks like a bug worth reporting at
> http://bugs.bacula.org/.
>
> I see that it also showed "Diff" in the output of "status dir" when running
> the copy job.
>
> FWIW, Differential is the Level in my JobDefs.

I just found one job that says Level=F in the bls output.  This is a job (my
catalog backup) where I use level = Full in Job definition, so it looks like
it is using the effective level in the original Job definition rather than the
JobDefs.

__Martin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Full job copied to a secondary location where it was marked as incremental

Josip Deanovic
On Friday 2017-02-17 18:29:37 Martin Simmons wrote:

> >>>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:24:38 GMT, Martin Simmons said:
> > >
> >>>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:36:23 +0100, Josip Deanovic said:
> > > Hi everyone!
> > >
> > > I have observed something related to copying jobs I found strange
> > > and I would like to hear what other people have to say about it.
> > >
> > >
> > > I have recycled one volume containing a full backup of some job.
> > > After that I have manually run that job and bacula automatically
> > > promoted a job from incremental to full job because there were no
> > > previous full jobs available and the job finished successfully.
> > >
> > > After that I have run copy job using SQLQuery selection type and
> > > the selection pattern I am using correctly found the latest full
> > > backup of the job in question.
> > >
> > > The copy of the job run successfully and everything is fine with
> > > the entries in the database. The copy of the job is going to the
> > > secondary location and naturally there is additional bunch of
> > > volumes (actually files since I am using file storage).
> > >
> > > However, few weeks later I have used bls tool on the volumes in
> > > the secondary location (place where copied jobs go) and I have
> > > found that unlike the original job in the volume on the primary
> > > backup location, the volume in the secondary backup location showed
> > > an entry which indicated that the copied job was incremental instead
> > > of full.
> > >
> > > Database entries are fine as well as the bls list of the volume
> > > from the primary backup location.
> > >
> > >
> > > Is there a theory that could explain why is the copy of the full
> > > backup job copied to the secondary location marked as incremental
> > > copy inside the volume while the original job is marked as full in
> > > the volume on the primary backup location as well as in the
> > > database?
> > >
> > > Normally this job in the volume on the secondary location should
> > > be marked as full as it is the case with other such jobs.
> >
> > It is similar for my copy jobs (though the level is Differential
> > instead of Incremental), so it looks like a bug worth reporting at
> > http://bugs.bacula.org/.
> >
> > I see that it also showed "Diff" in the output of "status dir" when
> > running the copy job.
> >
> > FWIW, Differential is the Level in my JobDefs.
>
> I just found one job that says Level=F in the bls output.  This is a job
> (my catalog backup) where I use level = Full in Job definition, so it
> looks like it is using the effective level in the original Job
> definition rather than the JobDefs.
>
> __Martin


Hi Martin,

I have made additional checks and I can confirm your observations.
I have a number of jobs with Level initially set to Incremental or
Full.

It seems that jobs in the volumes at the secondary location copied
from the volumes at the primary location still retains the Level flag
which is set in the definition of the jobs in the bacula configuration.

I will check if a similar bug has been reported and if not, I'll report
this as a bug since it's logical for copied jobs to reflect the status
of the original job and the info written to the database.

Thank you for your help.


Regards

--
Josip Deanovic

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Loading...