On 3/16/11 6:21 AM, Dave Howorth wrote: > Third, I think you're misunderstanding the implications of how > dirvish/rsync works. Because it uses hard links, you really only have > one backup copy anyway. So any warm fuzzy feeling you get from "having > more than one copy" is illusory. If you want more than one physical > copy, you need multiple dirvish vaults for each backup or some other > method of making physical copies. So what you'd like dirvish to do > strikes me as pointless.
I was nodding my head in agreement to your message until the very end of this. This has come up before on the mailing list. If I understand the OP correctly, his primary desire is that dirvish apply a higher level understanding of the "value" of a given backup and expire based on this, rather than "mindless" application of the expiry date assigned at backup time. The classic example I remember from some years ago was the person who was terribly bent out of shape that after his disk failed dirvish continued to delete images until he was left with a single image. It had been successful, but it was very far from being the latest image at the time of failure. Dirvish doesn't deal with this situation very well in the opinion of many. There is no reason I can think of that a tool couldn't be written to manipulate the expiry dates to meet the requirements of local policy. I've not heard of any such, but it doesn't mean they're not out there. Personally, when I have something blow up, one of my actions on my checklist is to add a decade to the expiry time on the most promising image in every dirvish vault that backs up what are now smoking ruins. -- --Jon Radel [email protected] _______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list [email protected] http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
