On 28 Nov 2006 at 17:26, Michael Koppelman wrote: > Sorry if this is redundant but I just wanted to add my voice to the > mix that it is too bad that bacula backs up files that have not > changed just because their mtime changed.
I have never seen it as a problem. > In the end, it is probably less expensive to checksum than move and > handle redundant data. It would at least be nice if one could choose > the scheme in the configuration so people who need to conserve > computation time and people who need to converse bandwidth could > choose accordingly. Any restore would give you the wrong mtime. Unless you started getting fancy within the Bacula Catalogs. -- Dan Langille : Software Developer looking for work my resume: http://www.freebsddiary.org/dan_langille.php PGCon - The PostgreSQL Conference - http://www.pgcon.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
