Re: [Bacula-users] checksums

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:22:15 -0800

Dan Langille wrote: 
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.
Perhaps it isn't a problem yet it does have the potential to significantly reduce the backup size and bandwidth used during the backup of workstations.  
  
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.
Perhaps getting fancy might be justifiable.  It seems to me (IMHO) that the capability to identify files that have already been backed up in the catalog by a strong checksum would make a good first step in making base backups work. 

Just my 2 cents worth,


Grant...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

Reply via email to