On 24.04.2018 18:20, Martin Nowak wrote: > What's the corruption scenario that manifest comparison should protect > against? > > The manifest contains volume checksums, but those aren't checked against the > volumes.
they should, at least during verify/restore > Eventually the remote manifest is just a copy of the local one. Multiple > duplicity instances writing to the same remote should be ruled out as well. you never know. better safe than sorry. > > The only thing that seems possible is an incomplete backup, but FWIW > duplicitly only renames a local temp manifest and uploads it to the remote > once the full backup is done. > or some corruption in the backend or local file system or.. what stays is the question how a corrupt manifest would affect an incremental or resumed backup? @Ken: do you want to chime in, as this smells like your area of expertise? additionally of course, the question still remains if this check makes sense there at all. obviously someone at some point thought so in the past, but no harm in revalidating. ..ede/duply.net -- https://code.launchpad.net/~dawgfoto/duplicity/fixup1252/+merge/343816 Your team duplicity-team is requested to review the proposed merge of lp:~dawgfoto/duplicity/fixup1252 into lp:duplicity. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
