Wolfgang Dobler wrote:
Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
> > I have been using Darcs to version-control the ASCII dumps of a Postgresql
> > database. The dump is ~ 15 MB in size.
>
> Darcs is the wrong tool for this job. For keeping machine-generated
> files of that size, I would recommend a snapshot-based rather than
> delta-based tool.
I just thought the deltas weren't that bad for my case, as the dump
process produces similar files each time.
I also use darcs in this fashion, but for smaller databases, which may
be the reason I'm not experiencing the same problem. I've become
completely dependent on darcs for version controlling just about
everything, including code, documentation, web sites, system
configuration, etc.
But for point-in-time backups, I've been using rdiff-backup:
http://www.nongnu.org/rdiff-backup/
If you like darcs, as I do, you might love rdiff-backup. Based on the
rsync protocol, it provides very efficient incremental backups, and can
even store them on remote hosts. Restoring or retrieving copies of files
or directories from any point-in-time is a snap.
During the day, I version control. Once a night, rdiff-backup takes
snapshots (including darcs repositories). This is pretty good insurance
against most mishaps. If you're only interested in saving efficient
snapshots of your data (without the event-driven emphasis of version
control), consider dumping your data regularly and making backups with
rdiff-backup.
I'm currently working on a project that contains ~ 500 MB of files. As
much as I'd like to version control it with darcs, I don't want to
devote over 2 GB of storage to a single project (working + pristine +
patches *and* backup of repository). So I keep a changelog in the
directory and manually take snapshots with rdiff-backup. It's primitive,
but it works.
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
