>>>>> Mike Borsuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> wrote the following on Sun, 11 Dec 2005 21:00:30 -0500 > > I agree. But what does that have to do with this?
Oh, I thought the previous discussion had something to do with that, but your reason is better anyway. > My reasoning involved keeping all my rdiff-backup directories on one > partition, in order to limit their size, and also to have the mirror > directories free of rdiff-backup data for doing secondary backups on > those. There are definitely workarounds but these seem like > valuable features to me (although I may be missing something). Well, part of what fixing the rdiff-backup-data location does is preclude options like the one you mention. Right now, (unless you try hard to mess this up) they have to be on the same file system. Off the top of my head, this has three practical consequences: 1) We can move files from the mirror to the rdiff-backup-data directory, 2) Files can be hard linked from mirror to increments directory (not sure if this matters), 3) The mirror and rdiff-backup-data dir have the same characteristics (acls, case-sensitivity, etc.), so we don't need to test both. I think 1 and 2 don't matter much, but 3 is a pain. There are probably some other consequences I haven't thought of. So, I've resisted a --data-location type option in the past because it would be more added work/complexity than it appears, and may not be worth it. -- Ben Escoto
pgpSMpXObCSpq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ rdiff-backup-users mailing list at [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/rdiff-backup-users Wiki URL: http://rdiff-backup.solutionsfirst.com.au/index.php/RdiffBackupWiki
