On Wednesday 28 August 2013 08:36 AM, Kevin Korb wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Only when you choose to force a completely unnecessary chown between
the backup and restore process.
On 08/27/13 23:03, Sherin A wrote:
On Wednesday 28 August 2013 04:14 AM, Kevin Korb wrote: My opinion
on backups is pretty simplistic. If a restore of my backup doesn't
bring me back to what I had when I backed up then I don't have a
backup.
If I have to restore something and the relationship between files
that were hard linked in the past is lost that might not be
something that I even notice immediately. Maybe not until the file
is changed and now there are 2 versions of it in different places
since the relationship is gone.
Either way, not backing up the hard link relationships duplicates
data on both the backup and on any potential restore.
But even more importantly, the original question was about
excluding all files with linkcount>1 from backups. That means that
any file important enough to have in more than one place would in
fact never be backed up at all. That is crazy.
On 08/27/13 18:37, Henri Shustak wrote:
The solution is not to refuse to backup any file that is a
hard link. There are legitimate reasons to have hard links
and ignoring them means you aren't backing up everything.
I agree that preserving hard links may be important in some
situation. There are certainly legitimate reasons to preserve
hard links within a backup.
To more than a couple of years I have been weighing up the
advantages and disadvantages relating to including a hard
link preservation support within LBackup. The latest alpha
build of LBackup now includes support for hard link
preservation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is protected by LBackup, an open source backup solution
http://www.lbackup.org
This is not crazy. Why a privileged user need to create multilevel
hard links . This issue has been approved by secunia security
community. Hope they will report it as a vulnerability , because
this POC has been exploited successfully and it is affected by all
software that use rsync as a backup and restore tool.
- --
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
Kevin Korb Phone: (407) 252-6853
Systems Administrator Internet:
FutureQuest, Inc. ke...@futurequest.net (work)
Orlando, Florida k...@sanitarium.net (personal)
Web page: http://www.sanitarium.net/
PGP public key available on web site.
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlIdaTkACgkQVKC1jlbQAQfPEwCg5mfKyctXooA5RIG86w8JdwBV
OpkAn1SIEMlHQb6UkLrTjMkfW7EFA/G9
=Eu/w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hello,
That is right , but no one give root ownerships for a local users
files in any situation, it must be need to chown , And no one like to
store the backups over internet under a remote privileged ( root) users
account. This only affect production servers, for personal users there
is no such thret for rsync.
--
--------------------------------------
Regards
Sherin A
http://www.sherin.co.in/
--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
