-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Only when you choose to force a completely unnecessary chown between the backup and restore process.
On 08/27/13 23:03, Sherin A wrote: > On Wednesday 28 August 2013 04:14 AM, Kevin Korb wrote: My opinion > on backups is pretty simplistic. If a restore of my backup doesn't > bring me back to what I had when I backed up then I don't have a > backup. > > If I have to restore something and the relationship between files > that were hard linked in the past is lost that might not be > something that I even notice immediately. Maybe not until the file > is changed and now there are 2 versions of it in different places > since the relationship is gone. > > Either way, not backing up the hard link relationships duplicates > data on both the backup and on any potential restore. > > But even more importantly, the original question was about > excluding all files with linkcount>1 from backups. That means that > any file important enough to have in more than one place would in > fact never be backed up at all. That is crazy. > > On 08/27/13 18:37, Henri Shustak wrote: >>>>> The solution is not to refuse to backup any file that is a >>>>> hard link. There are legitimate reasons to have hard links >>>>> and ignoring them means you aren't backing up everything. >>>> I agree that preserving hard links may be important in some >>>> situation. There are certainly legitimate reasons to preserve >>>> hard links within a backup. >>>> >>>> To more than a couple of years I have been weighing up the >>>> advantages and disadvantages relating to including a hard >>>> link preservation support within LBackup. The latest alpha >>>> build of LBackup now includes support for hard link >>>> preservation. >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> > >>>> This email is protected by LBackup, an open source backup solution >>>> http://www.lbackup.org >>>> >>>> >>>> > This is not crazy. Why a privileged user need to create multilevel > hard links . This issue has been approved by secunia security > community. Hope they will report it as a vulnerability , because > this POC has been exploited successfully and it is affected by all > software that use rsync as a backup and restore tool. > - -- ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~ Kevin Korb Phone: (407) 252-6853 Systems Administrator Internet: FutureQuest, Inc. ke...@futurequest.net (work) Orlando, Florida k...@sanitarium.net (personal) Web page: http://www.sanitarium.net/ PGP public key available on web site. ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlIdaTkACgkQVKC1jlbQAQfPEwCg5mfKyctXooA5RIG86w8JdwBV OpkAn1SIEMlHQb6UkLrTjMkfW7EFA/G9 =Eu/w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- 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
