In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> > That is correct. This feature is being worked on but for now, Bacula
> > restores ALL files, including deleted and renamed ones.
>
> Do you (or others) have some feedback on how bad this behavior is in
> practice? My gut says that it could be pretty bad, but I haven't yet
> come up with any particularly bad examples.
I just had the "pleasure" of having to do a restore of 750 GB of data
(after a double disk error in a RAID5 array). This included the /home
partition where everybody is working. It was, and is, a major issue.
You won't beklieve how many temproary build trees etc. happen to
exist at the time when the backup is running, and go away a few
minutes later. If you're lucky and have to restore just the full
dumps this may be acceptable, but if you have to restore 5 or 6
incrementals as well this piles up a lot.
Another isse I see is the also metnioned "feature" to back up files
based on the time stamps alone. This does not catch any renames, and
it also does not catch NEW files with old time stamps (like when I
download some stuff from the net preserving the original timestamps).
This is BAD.
I've posted about this before, see the archives.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harrisberger's Fourth Law of the Lab:
Experience is directly proportional to the
amount of equipment ruined.
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid0944&bid$1720&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
