At 09:13 PM 15/08/2012, you wrote: >Paul Slootman wrote: > > On Wed 15 Aug 2012, Dave Howorth wrote: > >> The important take-home message is that the numerical IDs are what > >> count. The names are just 'sugar' for humans and don't really > mean anything. > > > > I feel compelled to mention here that this is valid in dirvish context, > > as dirvish supplies rsync with the --numeric-ids option; rsync's default > > is to try to map names on the source and destination. > >Wow, I never even realized that. Mostly because all my machines share >uids. Seems like a broken rsync default, if you ask me, but then what do >I know? :)
And I have no idea what you mean by a broken rsync default. My experiments have shown me that across the backups and restores I have done in the past few days, the numeric ids have been preserved, just the name mappings from those ids change. So I am happy that the default dirvish generated rsync command does the job as intended. I haven't tried a restore without also using the -numeric-ids option in rsync so I don't know what would happen in that case. Not sure I want to find out, it might mean a lot more work for me than I want! Joe >Cheers, Dave >_______________________________________________ >Dirvish mailing list >[email protected] >http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish _______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list [email protected] http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
