On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 05:29:11PM -0400, John Snow wrote: > > > On 07/17/2017 03:37 PM, Ishani wrote: > > ----- On Jul 17, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Fam Zheng f...@redhat.com wrote: > >> On Sun, 07/16 02:13, Ishani Chugh wrote: > > [...] > > >> Only full backup is implemented in this patch, is the plan to add > >> incremental > >> backup on top? I'm curious because you have target file path set during > >> drive > >> add, but in the incremental case, it should be possible that each backup > >> creates > >> a new target file that chains up with earlier ones, so I think the target > >> file > >> should be an option for "backup" command as well. > > > > Yes. Incremental backup is to be added. I am still in learning phase with > > respect to incremental backups. I will modify the arguments and workflow > > accordingly. > > > > You may consider solidifying the backup target *pattern* during drive > add as an alternative, such as: > > .../path/to/backup/%VM%/%DRIVE%/%yyyy%-%mm%-%dd%.qcow2 > > Or some such scheme. Simple numerals work well, too: > > myvm/sda/incr.0.qcow2 > myvm/sda/incr.1.qcow2 > > Simple numerals offer the benefit that it is easier to reconstruct the > chain if you lose your metadata in the python script. > > Also consider that even for non-incremental backups, we want full > backups made subsequently to not, in general, overwrite the previous > full backup, so the TARGET is more of a "living entity" than a fixed > thing, even in the simple case.
Patterns would be nice. You may find string.Template() useful: https://docs.python.org/2.7/library/string.html#template-strings https://docs.python.org/3/library/string.html#template-strings
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
