On 03/04/09 21:19, Kevin Keane wrote: > Erik P. Olsen wrote: >> On 03/04/09 18:56, Kevin Keane wrote: >> >>> Foo wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:57:32 +0200, John Drescher >>>> <dresche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Kevin Keane >>>>> <subscript...@kkeane.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This actually is correct behavior. If you look carefully, you will >>>>>> see >>>>>> that these two directories are actually not directories at all, but >>>>>> rather junction points that simply reference other directories >>>>>> somewhere >>>>>> else. Windows junction points are like a cross between Linux symlinks >>>>>> and Linux mounts. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I would like to add to the OP that these should be ignored as they >>>>> are harmless. >>>>> >>>> They belong to .net 2.0 and can be included explicitly. If you >>>> don't, I would expect .net to break in some mysterious way, >>>> although it might break anyway if Bacula cannot restore junction >>>> points (can it?). At least I include them to be sure. You'll get >>>> warnings about them anyway if you include the whole partition, but >>>> that can be ignored. >>>> >>>> I guess if the restore doesn't work properly, you can always >>>> reinstall ..net (+ hotfixes/service packs) to fix it, though that's >>>> not ideal. Thankfully I didn't run into this so far. >>>> >>> Actually, you probably should *not* include these directories >>> explicitly. Because they are junction points, the actual data is >>> stored somewhere else, usually on the same file system, and already >>> is getting backed up. By including the directories explicitly, you >>> would basically on restore create a real directory instead of a >>> junction point, which could wreak havoc with .NET updates in the >>> future (as well as many other issues, I'm sure). >>> >>> >> I think it would be wiser if the client instead of backing-up a >> junction point rather would back-up >> the actual data. It is not easy to find all junction points and treat >> them manually. I for one would >> not be able to perform this task, IMHO it should be done automagically >> by the client. It would also >> be perfect if a junction point would be recreated as part of a restore >> operation. >> > The data is backed up automatically from the location where it really > resides (as long as the file set includes that location, of course. > Usually, not a problem because most of these types of junction points > simply link to neighboring directories, or at least close-by ones). > I think I need to understand it better. If I interpret it correctly then a file set including a junction will cause the actual data to be backed-up. But what happens if the data has to be restored? Will the actual data be restored together with the junction?
> Did you mean to respond to the group? Yes, I am sorry I really intended to respond to the list but forgot to add it's address to the header. -- Erik. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
