On 4 March 2011 23:00, hanj wrote:
> Hello All
>
> I've been backing up one of my linux servers for years. Last night out
> of the blue, it's thinking that my /home partition (which is a separate
> drive) needs to be completely backed up. It's very odd, I looked at the
> backups prior and only a f
On Sat 05 Mar 2011, Dale Amon wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 01:35:44AM +0100, Paul Slootman wrote:
> >
> > The owner is (has become?) different. Hence dirvish needs to retransmit
> > those files as the metadata is different.
>
> But if the contents has not changed, the actual transmittal
> sho
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 09:47:40 +
Jenny Hopkins wrote:
> Hanj - you've said this is out of the blue, but have there been
> absolutely no changes to your system at all? - upgrade, change to an
> nfs mount, any system changes like that?
Out of the blue. Backups on this box has been running for yea
On Sunday 06 March 2011 13.28:29 Paul Slootman wrote:
> Seems a bit on the assinine side to duplicate say, an
>
> > unchanged 100GB iso image, just because the user 'touch'd,
> > chmod'ed or chown'ed it. Really a rather serious waste of
> > resources.
There's no choice here: hardlinked files hav
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 01:28:29PM +0100, Paul Slootman wrote:
> Dirvish's mission is to keep a completely correct backup of the source
> tree. If attributes have changed, they may have been changed because
> things didn't work correctly before, so it's important to have the
> latest image reflect
Hi,
[file renames]
On Sunday 06 March 2011 17.50:44 Dale Amon wrote:
> It's sort of the deduplication problem... if btrfs really does
> solve that, it could be a very big win.
As I said, the chmod/chown case *should* be fine today. Deduplication in
other cases (file renames, but also similar/id
