On 28 Jan 2007 14:51:37 -0800, "Barton C Massey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the consensus among dirvish developers is that this is > desirable behavior, I guess I'll work around it, at least > for now. Is this behavior really what folks want? Short answer: No. Long answer: I also stumbled upon this behaviour, We have logical volumes for every vault and similar issues. We also tried once to have a "current" directory --bind mounted to the last image's tree in a vault. If someone / something now created a file or directory summary in the backed up filesystem, dirvish-expire loses. I would like to vote to change this algorithm to something more robust. Greetings -- Robert Sander Senior Manager Information Systems Epigenomics AG Kleine Praesidentenstr. 1 10178 Berlin, Germany phone:+49-30-24345-0 fax:+49-30-24345-555 http://www.epigenomics.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list [email protected] http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
