Am 25.05.2011 12:01, schrieb Dave Howorth: > Rolf-Werner Eilert wrote: >> But dirvish never followed the symlink /foo/backup to the new /backup >> directory (I think that is ok, I simply forgot). > > OK, I think I understood everything up until here, and this is expected > behaviour as I think you understand. > >> But in my dirvish backup, I have considered the directories directly >> deviating from root by making a "backup-root" directory on the discs and >> excluding those which are nonsense. So yesterday I expected, after >> having made a directory "backup-backup" for /backup on the backup medium >> and putting the dirvish conf file into it that dirvish would consider >> /backup last night, but it didn't. > > But I'm not following exactly what you've done here. It sounds like you > have misconfigured something, or if you've created a new vault then > you've forgotten to create the initial image. But without seeing what > your actual configuration is, it's very difficult to spot any mistakes > in it! So please give more detail.
Ok, you're right - this was kinda confusing. Of course, I forgot to initiate the new vault, thanks for the reminder :-) After doing so at 4:41 pm yesterday, I expected it to run again in the regular backup last night, but this morning I found it did not. Looking around, I recovered /etc/dirvish/master.conf and added the missing line under Runall ;-) Now I hope it will do as expected tonight. I tend to forget these things when everything just runs as expected for years... But I still wonder why it doesn't follow /backup whilst it does so in other directories in "/". It saves the directory /backup, but it leaves it empty. Maybe there is a default for "/" somewhere? Rolf _______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list [email protected] http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
