On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 15:12 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 08:28:11AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > >Separate files seems much simpler... > > > > > > > > > > Yes, We need to stick to the KISS principle. > > > > ISTM that we could simply invent a new archive format of "d" for directory. > > Yeah, you can always ZIP (or whatever) the resulting directory when you're > done.. > > But looking at it from a "backup tool perspective", like if you want to > integrate it in your network backup solution, that might make it harder. > Being able to deliver over a single, or over multiple, pipes is what's > needed there. If you need to dump it to disk first and can only "pick it > up" later, that'll require a lot more I/O and disk space. > > But I'm not sure that's a concern we need to think about in this case, > just wanted to mention it.
If I'm using a network backup solution I'd be using physical backup, which can already be parallelised. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
