Malcom H sent this msg directly to me, but I do think it's useful on this tread:
filesystems which support creation of checkpoints and/or snapshots are probably the appropriate way to solve that issue - zfs is one that comes to mind, although istr there is a "fssnap" feature in ffs in NetBSD but I haven't used it in ages ... done at the filesystem level with zfs you do indeed get directory trees, permissions, ACLs and everything back, because with zfs' copy-on-write model you are looking at files which reference exactly the same blocks they had when the snapshot was taken creative ways to manage generation of snapshots on a system will let you walk previous versions of your filesystem at any arbitrary time that you create them - albeit with some penalty for keeping track of the differences between the filesystem state as it was then and how it is now ... Regards, Malcolm I like the idea that every file is treated as if the FS were one, giant, VCS... On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:35 AM Hauke Fath <h...@spg.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: > On 2020-07-01 18:25, Michael Cheponis wrote: > > I agree that backups are necessary, but who hasn't had a corrupted > backup? > > And it's much less convenient. With disks so big these days, a 'shadow > > filesystem' seems most logical to me. > > There are scripts which will create and remove a set of snapshots on > zfs, which would be pretty much what you have in mind. > > Traditional Unix filesystems don't support this well, I am afraid. > > Cheerio, > Hauke > > > -- > The ASCII Ribbon Campaign Hauke Fath > () No HTML/RTF in email Institut für Nachrichtentechnik > /\ No Word docs in email TU Darmstadt > Respect for open standards Ruf +49-6151-16-21344 >
