On Mon, 12 May 2008 16:51:08 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:
> · Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> And last, but not least: Why should backup directories be shared in
> >> the first place?
> >
> > They shouldn't, and I never stated that they should.
>
> You stated that there might be such
On Sun, 11 May 2008 01:02:24 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > Isn't that exactly what I said three wrong turns and four red herrings
> > ago? ;-)
>
> maybe - the whole thread is way too long. It went past its shelf life
> two days ago ;)
It's not long, it's infinite; having met itself an
On Samstag, 10. Mai 2008, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 21:02:21 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > if you tar 'em up you don't even need to worry about the file
> > permission capabilities of the underlying fs.
>
> Isn't that exactly what I said three wrong turns and four red herr
On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:07:25 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:
> At least I wouldn't store everything in the same directory. It would
> of course be a good idea to seperate things.
When did I ever mention using a single directory to mix up all
backups?
All I did was answer a question with an exam
On Sat, 10 May 2008 21:02:21 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> if you tar 'em up you don't even need to worry about the file
> permission capabilities of the underlying fs.
Isn't that exactly what I said three wrong turns and four red herrings
ago? ;-)
--
Neil Bothwick
"Ubuntu" is an ancie
On Samstag, 10. Mai 2008, Stroller wrote:
> On 10 May 2008, at 07:07, Michael Schmarck wrote:
> >> So. We can use the same web pages, read the same email, why not share
> >> hardware?
> >
> > Because it doesn't make sense, to share the same filesystem for
> > backing up Windows and Linux?
>
> You k
On 10 May 2008, at 07:07, Michael Schmarck wrote:
So. We can use the same web pages, read the same email, why not share
hardware?
Because it doesn't make sense, to share the same filesystem for
backing up Windows and Linux?
You keep saying this like it's obvious, but don't provide any good
On Saturday 10 May 2008, Michael Schmarck wrote:
> > A backup device is just a storage appliance, if should not be
> > parochial about the origin of the data it stores.
>
> But because there are different requirements (features of the
> filesystems), what you're saying is not correct.
No, what YOU
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Michael Schmarck
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, sharing storage space makes a lot of sense.
>
> No, it does not· Not for such important and specialized things as
> backups.
>
> For general usage: Yes, it
On Wed, 7 May 2008 15:39:03 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > Disadvantage: An experimental filesystem is not the best place to keep
> > important backups :(
>
> and the fuse-stuff is not experimental?
Yes it is, which is why I decided not to use it after reading the web
sites.
--
Neil
On Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2008, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:30:40 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > or you can try reiser4 with either gzip or lzo.
> > Advantage: it does not try to compress incompressible files...
>
> Disadvantage: An experimental filesystem is not the best place t
On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:30:40 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> or you can try reiser4 with either gzip or lzo.
> Advantage: it does not try to compress incompressible files...
Disadvantage: An experimental filesystem is not the best place to keep
important backups :(
--
Neil Bothwick
Failur
On Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2008, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 11:34:35 +0200, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > > What is that? I was looking for such a beast a while ago, but could
> > > only find read-only filesystems with compression, like squashfs.
> >
> > http://fuse.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.p
On Wed, 7 May 2008 11:34:35 +0200, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > What is that? I was looking for such a beast a while ago, but could
> > only find read-only filesystems with compression, like squashfs.
>
> http://fuse.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/CompressedFileSystems
A couple of those look inte
Am Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2008 schrieb ext Neil Bothwick:
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 09:57:02 +0200, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > > rsync is good, but has its own disadvantages, notably the lack of
> > > compression and the reliance on the destination filesystem to
> > > preserve permissions.
> >
> > Can you elab
On Wed, 7 May 2008 09:57:02 +0200, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > rsync is good, but has its own disadvantages, notably the lack of
> > compression and the reliance on the destination filesystem to preserve
> > permissions.
>
> Can you elaborate more on the latter, please? What exactly is rsync
> re
Am Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2008 schrieb ext Neil Bothwick:
> rsync is good, but has its own disadvantages, notably the lack of
> compression and the reliance on the destination filesystem to preserve
> permissions.
Can you elaborate more on the latter, please? What exactly is rsync relying
on and which
On Wed, 07 May 2008 08:09:57 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:
> But if a backup to disk is done, tar is still a good tool for the job,
> but IMO not the best tool available. Instead I'd suggest to use rsync.
> Reason: It's easier to restore just a single file.
rsync is good, but has its own disadva
On Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2008, Michael Schmarck wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is nothing wrong with tar. In fact tar is great for this job. dd
> > not.
>
> Depends. If you backup to tape, like you do, then the Tape Archiver
> commonly called "tar" is the tool to use.
19 matches
Mail list logo
