Petcher, Daniel wrote: > Sure, they've got a pretty Apple-style GUI, some logic added to skip cache > files, pre-configure the expiration process. and resume after a shut-down, > but it's essentially the same idea we've been using for years.
To the best of my knowledge, no, it's quite sophisticated and uses the file system change notification API; the same underlying mechanism that Spotlight uses, but Time Machine uses an interface that's moved farther out of the kernel. For details on the facilities used, http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/mac-os-x-10-5.ars/7 > I'm not sure whether to feel validated or ripped-off. What do you think? I'm not sure if you've been using Macs; but /I/ simply think that they should start at writing one decent file system for that thing - i.e., the basics - before going overboard with luxury items like hyper-modern backup systems. HFS+ is unreliable (i.e., it loses data in situations other than catastrophic hardware failure), it's slow, and it lacks import UNIX semantics such as real hard links. Apple UFS panics under high load and is not largefile-capable (at least by default, I didn't investigate it at great detail because, well, it panics anyway). These BTW are also the reasons why I always needed to do my dirvish backups to my Linux box. Why anybody would trust them with the archive of all their work mystifies me. With live data, less is at stake (just the delta to the last Backup); with the archive, it's everything. And you'll likely only notice corruption when the live copy is already down. Yours, Bernd _______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list [email protected] http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
