On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Mark Burgess <mark.burg...@iu.hio.no> wrote:
>
> nwat...@symcor.com wrote:
>
>
> > The second thing I noticed was the remote copy body.
> > body copy_from remote_cp(from,server)
> > {
> > servers => { "$(server)" };
> > source => "$(from)";
> > compare => "mtime";
> > }
> >
> > Although comparing using mtime is efficient I don't think that it
> > outweighs its uncertainty. File times can change for many reasons good,
> > accidental and nefarious. I think that comparing hashes would be more
> > prudent.
>
> My thinking here is that you typically want fast or secure, and adding this
> check is
> actually more expensive than encrytion, so remote_cp is for transferring
> lots of data.
> What do others think? Another different name or just change this?
>
> M
>
Happy new year eveyone,
I think that the compare mtime is more than enough for most of the tasks. I
first managed my backups using the hashes, and after the first day i
switched to mtime, because my computer was just chomping tons and tons of
bytes for nearly nothing...
So i'd rather keep this version, and add another body with hashes comparison
Regards,
Nicolas
_______________________________________________
Help-cfengine mailing list
Help-cfengine@cfengine.org
https://cfengine.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine
