-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wouldn't these databases CHANGE anyway -- do the files stay exactly the
same if nothing is written to them? How about if they are read, etc. I
personally don't know, but my feeling is 99% of the time, the files
would change at least subtly.
Michael Ko
--On Mittwoch, 29. November 2006 09:07 -0800 Robert Nelson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You could always do the checksum and copy before the backup.
>
> Just dump the files to a different directory. Then copy the files that
> have changed to the directory that gets backed up.
Good point. My su
On Thursday 30 November 2006 16:10, Michael Koppelman wrote:
> That's metadata. The _data_ hasn't changed. I repeat it is wasteful
> to back up *data* that has not changed. Some programs are smart
> enough to do this.
>
> I've also pointed out that we can have it both ways, if we want.
> App
That's metadata. The _data_ hasn't changed. I repeat it is wasteful
to back up *data* that has not changed. Some programs are smart
enough to do this.
I've also pointed out that we can have it both ways, if we want.
Apparently some people would rather back up the same identical data
over a
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Michael Koppelman wrote:
> Yes we could. It doesn't change the fact, in my opinion, that is it
> wasteful to back up files that have not changed.
They have changed - their mtime has altered.
-
Take Surv
" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] checksums
> To: "'Michael Koppelman'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"'Dan Langille'"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL
: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:03 AM
To: Dan Langille
Cc: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] checksums
For us it's a problem because we are dumping out some very large
databases, some of which change daily but many which do not. We'd
like to dump the
For us it's a problem because we are dumping out some very large
databases, some of which change daily but many which do not. We'd
like to dump the files out every night and just have bacula back up
the changed files. The unchanged files were recreated but are still
identical to previous ve
On Wednesday 29 November 2006 00:26, Michael Koppelman wrote:
> Sorry if this is redundant but I just wanted to add my voice to the
> mix that it is too bad that bacula backs up files that have not
> changed just because their mtime changed. In the end, it is probably
> less expensive to chec
Dan Langille wrote:
On 28 Nov 2006 at 17:26, Michael Koppelman wrote:
Sorry if this is redundant but I just wanted to add my voice to the
mix that it is too bad that bacula backs up files that have not
changed just because their mtime changed.
I have never seen it a
On 28 Nov 2006 at 17:26, Michael Koppelman wrote:
> Sorry if this is redundant but I just wanted to add my voice to the
> mix that it is too bad that bacula backs up files that have not
> changed just because their mtime changed.
I have never seen it as a problem.
> In the end, it is probabl
Sorry if this is redundant but I just wanted to add my voice to the
mix that it is too bad that bacula backs up files that have not
changed just because their mtime changed. In the end, it is probably
less expensive to checksum than move and handle redundant data. It
would at least be nice
12 matches
Mail list logo
