On 04/06/2010 06:35 PM, Josh Nisly wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I think starting another project isn't an all bad solution - I think we may have increasingly divergent goals. For myself, having a current mirror is well worth the cost in disk space; it means that it's much easier to recover from a file corruption or program bug. OTOH, loosing this requirement opens the door to other features.
I don't see how relaxing that requirement shall save space, unless you're speaking about compressed baseline backup.
OTOH, I agree that the immediate access to the last copy is a plus (oops recovery), but in the case of delayed recovery - several days or generation - I think it's more an exploration of the metadata that count. And then I'm not convinced that the filesystem is the best interface.
Nicolas _______________________________________________ rdiff-backup-users mailing list at rdiff-backup-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/rdiff-backup-users Wiki URL: http://rdiff-backup.solutionsfirst.com.au/index.php/RdiffBackupWiki
