On 09/28 11:34 , Rob Owens wrote:
> Very interesting discussion. Here's a link to an article on backups
> that you've probably all seen, but it's very interesting:
> http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rsync_snapshots/
I haven't seen that, and it was very clever. Learned about some features of
rsy
Craig Barratt wrote:
> Les writes:
>
>> But will you still be able to restore the file state as of each separate
>> run? Sometimes the reason you are restoring is that the current version
>> is a mess. The issue could probably be avoided with a complete tree
>> link copy before starting followe
On 09/26 04:31 , Craig Barratt wrote:
> Rsync didn't get added to BackupPC until 2.0.0, so the
> architecture didn't consider how rsync typically works.
ah, ok. I've only used it since 2.0.1 I think. I always guessed that rsync
was the original transport mechanism, and the others were added later.
Les writes:
> But will you still be able to restore the file state as of each separate
> run? Sometimes the reason you are restoring is that the current version
> is a mess. The issue could probably be avoided with a complete tree
> link copy before starting followed by in in-place update, but t
Carl writes:
> ah, I see.
> I think I see some of the arguments for doing things this way, but what was
> *your* reasoning when you first designed this architecture? It's rather
> unusual compared to the other rsync-backup programs I've seen (or built).
Rsync didn't get added to BackupPC until 2.
Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
>>> My understanding of how BackupPC works in this regard is imperfect. Why
>>> can't the old partial backup be updated, in the way that conventional rsync
>>> updates an old copy?
>> BackupPC doesn't do anything in place on the server. It always
>> creates a new dir
On 09/24 12:38 , Craig Barratt wrote:
> > My understanding of how BackupPC works in this regard is imperfect. Why
> > can't the old partial backup be updated, in the way that conventional rsync
> > updates an old copy?
>
> BackupPC doesn't do anything in place on the server. It always
> creates a
Carl writes:
> > It depends on XferMethod. For rsync it should not delete files from a
> > partial. For smb and tar, it starts a new transfer, and if any files
> > get transfered (even if less than the prior partial), the new partial
> > replaces the old. I should change that so it doesn't save
Apologies for the slow response on this. I've been preoccupied with a Very
Large Project for the past 3 weeks.
On 09/06 05:57 , Craig Barratt wrote:
> Carl writes:
> > BackupPC does not pick up where a 'partial' transfer left off in many cases.
> > I don't fully understand the mechanism (tho it is
Carl writes:
> BackupPC does not pick up where a 'partial' transfer left off in many cases.
> I don't fully understand the mechanism (tho it is somewhat explained here:
> http://osdir.com/ml/sysutils.backup.backuppc.general/2004-08/msg00013.html
> ); but the result is that perfectly good files are
This happened to me again last night. I lost 2 GB of partial transfer
(which took a long time to get -- uploaded from a home internet connection).
One way to fix this would be to do a straight rsync of the files to a
temporary location, then let BackupPC do its thing, integrating the new
files in
I'm also going do be depending on this feature shortly (not discarding
partial transfers), so I second Carl's proposal.
-Rob
Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
> BackupPC does not pick up where a 'partial' transfer left off in many cases.
> I don't fully understand the mechanism (tho it is somewhat e
BackupPC does not pick up where a 'partial' transfer left off in many cases.
I don't fully understand the mechanism (tho it is somewhat explained here:
http://osdir.com/ml/sysutils.backup.backuppc.general/2004-08/msg00013.html
); but the result is that perfectly good files are deleted from the part
13 matches
Mail list logo
