On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 07:53:20AM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 01:29, David Brown wrote: > > > By storing the files in the same order as the traversal, they will likely > > stay near files that will be retrieved at a similar time. > > How would you maintain any kind of order as backups are > expired and replaced? You also need to check new files for > hashing collisions before linking and there won't be any > particular ordering for that.
When files are no longer used, they are simply deleted, and those numbered slots are never used. There is _NO_ linking in my proposal, that is it's point. Also, if you hash the entire file, instead of just the beginning, and you use a strong enough hash function, there won't be any collisions. Rsync is already assuming this. I'm not going to discuss this proposal any further. The way that backuppc (and other programs) work is too ingrained in people's thinking to realize that there are other ways to do things. Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
