Hi,
On 06/07/05 23:35, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> Yeah, but switching to OpenSSL's md4 sum will make it faster, without
> making it any weaker.
OpenSSL's MD4 implementation is actually 1.30 times *slower* than its
MD5 implementation on my machine.
>>>Though it someone can demonstrate that a diffe
One more thing:
Donovan Baarda wrote:
> My gut feeling is an additionalwhole file hash calculated
> alongside the blocksum hashes would not be a significant cost...
> particularly compared to the rollsum+hashtable lookups at every byte.
When the files mostly match, "rdiff signature" and "rdiff d
Well, I think that exactly matters. Try again permitting writing to the log
and report again...
Am Dienstag 19 Juli 2005 17:15 schrieb Sheldon Hearn:
> On Monday 18 July 2005 22:49, dean gaudet wrote:
> > > However, the restores exception out on "Operation not permitted",
> > > as per the attache
Hi,
Donovan Baarda wrote:
> Ahh, you missed the worst bit... the new file is rolled through checking
> blocks at each byte boundary, so you don't have n blocks for the new
> file, you have z blocks where z is the size of the file in bytes, ie
> 2^32, not 2^22.
Yes, I had this in mind:
>>>In pra
Hi,
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, dean gaudet wrote:
> > So I'll just carry this patch on my central server (it's not required on
> > restore clients), and we can all pretend this didn't happen until the
> > next person tries to use rdiff-backup to restore from a read-only
> > location. :-)
>
> i'm te
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> If we're not root on the server during a restore operation, we try to
> change permissions to ensure readability? Either we can read an object
> or we can't. If we can't, it's _highly_ unlikely that we'll be able to
> change permissions on it anyway
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 13:26, Maarten Bezemer wrote:
> Without looking at the trace or at the source, I'd say it may make
> sense in some situations. Like: having stuff below a 'closed'
> directory. When backing up, permissions are temporarily changed to
> allow writes, and my guess is that the
Hi,
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> As you requested, I made it writable, and still get "Operation not
> permitted" on an unrelated object (currently the packages
> subdirectory).
Without looking at the trace or at the source, I'd say it may make sense
in some situations. Like: hav
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 11:39, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> Anyone actually know what rdiff-backup thinks its doing here? If I
> could find the wayward chmod/chown in the source, I'd just hack it
> out, since it's bogus for my application, and probably bogus in any
> restore.
I've taken a look at the
Why do you think the failure to modify the restore log makes a
difference?
As you requested, I made it writable, and still get "Operation not
permitted" on an unrelated object (currently the packages
subdirectory).
Fresh trace included.
Anyone actually know what rdiff-backup thinks its doing
10 matches
Mail list logo
