On Wed, 2 May 2007 11:08:01 -0400 Scott
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On May 2, 2007, at 9:02 AM, Holger Parplies wrote:
>
> > resource forks. You know more about Macs than I do (what they look
> > like, for
> > instance ;-). The list archives know even more.
>
I have not yet tried tar on 10.
Hi,
Scott wrote on 02.05.2007 at 11:08:01 [Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC and OS X]:
> On May 2, 2007, at 9:02 AM, Holger Parplies wrote:
> > Due to the implementation of pooling your second full backup may be
> > much faster than the first: [...]
>
> This sounds like it ju
Scott wrote:
> One goal I have is to not have to modify the OS X clients at all.
> Meaning, I should be able to do a fresh 10.4 install, apply the Apple
> updates, then enable whatever access is needed before I can start
> recovery. I would rather not have to remember to install xtar or what
On May 2, 2007, at 9:02 AM, Holger Parplies wrote:
> resource forks. You know more about Macs than I do (what they look
> like, for
> instance ;-). The list archives know even more.
That's what I thought to however I see the ._* resource forks on the
Linux filesystem. The copy of tar in 10.4
n change the hashing algorithm, but
you'll have to start over if you do, and I doubt there is much to be
gained except headaches.
Scott wrote on 02.05.2007 at 07:49:46 [Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC and OS X]:
> On May 2, 2007, at 5:59 AM, Jamie Lists wrote:
> > this may sound wei
On May 2, 2007, at 5:59 AM, Jamie Lists wrote:
> Hey Scott,
> this may sound weird but have pretty much the same setup as you and
> we're finding the cause of our terrible backup speeds to be a problem
> with ssh speeds on centos.
>
> We don't know why this is happening yet but are working on it.
Hey Scott,
this may sound weird but have pretty much the same setup as you and
we're finding the cause of our terrible backup speeds to be a problem
with ssh speeds on centos.
We don't know why this is happening yet but are working on it. Also
we're on centos 4.4.
Anyway try it yourself and see w
