On 04Nov2011 10:27, Chris Dunlop <ch...@onthe.net.au> wrote: | On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 09:34:53AM -0500, Alex Waite wrote: | >> Not a direct answer, but this may do what you want: | >> | >> http://gitweb.samba.org/?p=rsync-patches.git;a=blob;f=link-by-hash.diff | >> | >> This patch adds the --link-by-hash=DIR option, which hard | >> links received | >> files in a link farm arranged by MD4 file hash. The result | >> is that the system | >> will only store one copy of the unique contents of each | >> file, regardless of | >> the file's name. | > | > This does look like what I was describing, though it seems it | > was | > never included into rsync. Is that correct? | | Yes, rsync-patches is stuff that is deemed to be not yet ready | (i.e. it may go in after it's been polished), or not at all | suitable (e.g. it's too esoteric for general usage), for rsync | proper.
Regarding "esoteric": I also have this kind of backup scheme. I would welcome that functionality, probably. BTW, how far does the --link-dest option go in this direction? I use it a fair bit (backing up multiple hosts with the same dataset on them, using link dest to refer to the parallel snapshots). Cheers, -- Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ Being on a Beemer and not having a wave returned by a Sportster is like having a clipper ship's hailing not returned by an orphaned New Jersey solid waste barge. - OTL -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
