>(it will likely eliminate the > current mirror in favor of a block-level database, but it solves a host of > other cross-platform issues so its appealing to me).
One of the major nice things about rdiff-backup at the moment is the ability to restore the latest version of the repository with a simple file copy. It also has a nice benefit that users can be given read-only access the the backup if necessary, without requiring special tools to extract files from it. As a user, this is why I picked rdiff-backup over all the proprietary backup solutions that make a massive binary blob containing your backup. One could consider a hybrid approach, where code is in place to allow any piece of data to either exist in a large database, or be referenced from the database to a file. Then, the latest versions of files can be stored in a traditional tree hierarchy, all referenced from the database. Difficult files, like those with unicode names, properties supported on one platform and not another, deleted or renamed files, etc. could then simply be left inside the database, rather than referenced as external files. I'm defining "database" here to mean any data store which requires rdiff-backup to make use of - ie. the files\data aren't useful when browsed with any old file manager. _______________________________________________ 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