[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 29 Jan 2007 11:31:08 +0000, > "Dave Howorth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Did I understand this correctly? You had your backups publically mounted >> read-write for normal users? That sounds like a really bad idea. I >> certainly wouldn't see the need for any changes to dirvish intended to >> protect users from the results of that kind of adventure. > > This was not what I wrote. User's were able to read the contents of the > last image because it was read-only exported via Samba. Samba needs a > static path for a share it exports. Simple as that. No adventures.
OK, then I still don't understand. You wrote: > Long answer: I also stumbled upon this behaviour, We have logical > volumes for every vault and similar issues. We also tried once to have > a "current" directory --bind mounted to the last image's tree in a > vault. If someone / something now created a file or directory summary > in the backed up filesystem, dirvish-expire loses. So what did you mean when you wrote "created a file or directory summary in the backed up filesystem"? What was your problem? Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list Dirvish@dirvish.org http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish