-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
chin wrote:
>
> Adam Goryachev wrote:
>> chin wrote:
>
> (...)
>
>>> To achieve this, I tried to define (via Web interface) a
>>> configuration for said Apple computer, that would set
>>>
>>> RsyncShareName = cle/Documents
>
>> Hi, welcome to backuppc, and it is good to see you are prepared to
>> write patches as needed. However, n this case, the feature you are
>> looking for already exists:
>> $Conf{RsyncShareName} = ['cle'];
>> $Conf{BackupFilesOnly} = {
>> 'cle' => ['/Documents', '/important'], # these are for
>> 'cle' share
>> };
>
> Upps! Thank you for pointing me to this method. Although I did
> recognized that setting, I failed to associate it with my problem
> domain. Sorry for that.
>
> After reading your proposal, I tried at once. But there I found a
> difference between your proposal and my patch: my proposed solution
> seems to be a lot faster than using BackupFilesOnly!
>
> Backing up 'cle/Temp/SomeDir' (module defined as /Users/cle) for
> instance, needed 1 minute, whereas backing up module 'cle' (defined as
> /Users/cle/Temp) with 'BackupFilesOnly = /SomeDir', already need one
> hour and is still not finished.
Is it possible for you to send the debug log of the two backup
methods... mainly so we can see the rsync commands sent across to the
other side in each case? Basically, I'd like to see why one is much
slower than the other...
I assume it is because your method tells rsyncd to just examine dir
cle/Temp/SomeDir while the current backuppc method asks it for cle/Temp
and when the data arrives on backuppc it simply discards everything
other than SomeDir. While I've never used it, it is also possible that
you implemented the config options incorrectly, as it seems very
in-efficient, and hopefully someone else would have already come across
this problem....
> So in this light, my I suggest to reconsider my proposal? It is not
> without reason, the command line tool 'rsync' offer that possibility to
> append directories to module's name ...
Well, it isn't up to me, I'm just a random (very happy) user of backuppc :)
> So in all that light, I would prefer to go a way like I proposed. If
> there is no chance to add that functionality to BackupPC, at worst I
> would define a module for every directory their want to backup and then
> backup said modules. This is equally fast, but do not allow them to
> configure the backup alone, as I would be needed to adapt theirs
> rsynd.conf :-(
Yes, this is the other possibility, but as you said, we should be able
to achieve this from within backuppc....
Regards,
Adam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkqSLRwACgkQGyoxogrTyiUy+wCgsqTfxy4ULPd5x7+CUnzqYwD6
uHMAn1s3eYhLlOIsuI6RuupSwEJ2ErM4
=elr+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
