On 12 May 2008, at 14:07, Michael Schmarck wrote:
... Reasons:
- "DOS Filesystems" (fat, ntfs) don't allow to store all the metadata
you find on Linux.
- "Linux filesystems" (ext*, reiser, ...) don't allow to store all
the metadata you find on Windows.
- Sharing backup space means, that it get'
On Mon, 12 May 2008 15:07:06 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:
> And last, but not least: Why should backup directories be shared in
> the first place?
They shouldn't, and I never stated that they should.
--
Neil Bothwick
I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.
> Correct. However you said, that "you need to access it (Linux backup
> directories) from Windows too". And that's the main point and the point
> that hasn't been answered yet: Why do you think, that such a need
> exists?
Suppose, you've got a project on which you work on both Windows and
Li
ยท Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:07:25 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:
>
>> At least I wouldn't store everything in the same directory. It would
>> of course be a good idea to seperate things.
>
> When did I ever mention using a single directory to mix up all
> back
On Wed, 07 May 2008 16:41:17 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:
> >> Can you elaborate more on the latter, please? What exactly is rsync
> >> relying on and which fs wouldn't meet the requirements.
> >
> > FAT on an external drive,
>
> Why not put ext* or reiserfs or whatever on such a drive?
B
Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 09:57:02 +0200, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
>
>> > rsync is good, but has its own disadvantages, notably the lack of
>> > compression and the reliance on the destination filesystem to preserve
>> > permissions.
>>
>> Can you elaborate more
6 matches
Mail list logo
