On 2015-11-24 15:50, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
I had tried using send/receive once with -p, but had numerous issues. The incrementals I've been doing have used -c instead, and I hadn't had any issues with data loss with that. The issue outlined here was only a small part of why I stopped using it for backups. The main reason was to provide better consistency between my local copies and what I upload to S3/Dropbox, meaning I only have to test one back up image per filesystem backed-up, instead of two.On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 15:44 -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:I would say it's currently usable for one-shot stuff, but probably not reliably useable for automated things without some kind of administrative oversight. In theory, it wouldn't be hard to write a script to automate fixing this particular issue when send encounters it, but that has it's own issues (you have to either toggle the snapshot writable temporarily, or modify the source and re-snapshot).Well AFAIU, *this* very issue is at least something that bails out loudly with an error... I rather worry about cases where send/receive just exits without any error (status or message) and still didn't manage to correctly copy everything. The case that I had was that I incrementally send/received (with -p) backups to another disk. At some point in time I removed one of the older snapshots on that backup disk... and then had fs errors... as if the data would have been gone.. :(
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
