On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 15:12, Dan Pritts wrote:
> > You'd probably want to fill
> > all the empty space with nulls every time too, so you don't
> > transfer all the changes where files have been deleted.
>
> Wouldn't matter except on the first transfer, since on the target
> would have the same junk in the empty areas.
I'd expect to see quite a lot of temp file activity that would
result in changes to unused space on the live system. It would
be interesting to see how this scheme would work in practice.
If rsync can re-sync on the matching parts fairly quickly it
might be the most efficient way even if you do have to snapshot
to a file first. That would give you a safety net on the
remote side too, since the transfer will take a long time and
a crash before it completes would probably leave a very
corrupted filesystem image on what was supposed to be your
offsite copy. I guess I should have made my working partitions
a bit smaller so the same size drive could have held a file
containing the image...
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
