Re: cross-platform backup tool Is anybody actively testing the beta version?
On Sun, 2022-11-06 at 07:37 +0100, EricZolf wrote: > Hi, ... > > > > Is that the case in the current version, or are they just > > approximately > > correct, i.e. things like read-only directories get write > > permission > > added? > > The file system permissions are approximately correct, the file > permissions are nevertheless stored 100% correctly as metadata (in > rdiff-backup-data/mirror_metadata.DATEANDTIME.snapshot.gz), so that > they > can be 100% restored, if possible. Both file system permissions > (backup > and restored) are mainly dependent on the capabilities of the user > doing > the backup resp. restore. Yes, that is what I thought was the case, i.e. the full permissions are stored separately, but it is close on the repo. If I want it correct, do a proper restore, not just copy the recent file. > > E.g. as a normal user can't change the owner of a file, all files > they > create will belong to them; on the other hand, doing backup and > restore > as root should guarantee 100% the same access rights (assuming things > like SELinux don't stand in the way). Yes, that is what I thought in the normal case, and I have cases where it has worked, and a couple of others where some files are missing from the repo. I suspect it is due to some past errors, but need time to see if I can find how it happened. > > I don't think this behaviour changed between 2.0 and 2.1+ Yes. I suspect that if there is an issue, it is probably caused by an error or more along the way. Remember this is my test system. My suspicion is that it was probably caused by some issue in error handling, or clean up, and may or may not have been fixed, but unless I can duplicate it, there isn't much I can report. > > Hope this explains it, > Eric Regards Frank
Re: cross-platform backup tool Is anybody actively testing the beta version?
Hi, On 06/11/2022 06:52, Frank Crawford wrote: On Sun, 2022-11-06 at 06:37 +0100, EricZolf wrote: Hi, ... There is only one minor issue I still have outstanding, which relates to permissions in the repo, and I haven't really sorted out what the difference is yet. However, I wouldn't wait for this, as it is a minor item. Are we talking about https://github.com/rdiff-backup/rdiff-backup/issues/765 or do you have something more? It is the comment I made towards the end that mentioned about a file not being backed up in a read-only directory. I'm yet to find time to follow up if it is a real issue, or rather an issue due to previous backup versions, failures, repairs, etc. Also, I've been meaning to ask, previously (rdiff-backup 1.x) the permissions of all the files in the repo seemed to match the source, although I don't think it had to. I know the actual permissions are stored separately. Is that the case in the current version, or are they just approximately correct, i.e. things like read-only directories get write permission added? The file system permissions are approximately correct, the file permissions are nevertheless stored 100% correctly as metadata (in rdiff-backup-data/mirror_metadata.DATEANDTIME.snapshot.gz), so that they can be 100% restored, if possible. Both file system permissions (backup and restored) are mainly dependent on the capabilities of the user doing the backup resp. restore. E.g. as a normal user can't change the owner of a file, all files they create will belong to them; on the other hand, doing backup and restore as root should guarantee 100% the same access rights (assuming things like SELinux don't stand in the way). I don't think this behaviour changed between 2.0 and 2.1+ Hope this explains it, Eric KR, Eric Regards Frank
Re: cross-platform backup tool Is anybody actively testing the beta version?
On Sun, 2022-11-06 at 06:37 +0100, EricZolf wrote: > Hi, ... > > > There is only one minor issue I still have outstanding, which > > relates > > to permissions in the repo, and I haven't really sorted out what > > the > > difference is yet. However, I wouldn't wait for this, as it is a > > minor item. > Are we talking about > https://github.com/rdiff-backup/rdiff-backup/issues/765 or do you > have > something more? It is the comment I made towards the end that mentioned about a file not being backed up in a read-only directory. I'm yet to find time to follow up if it is a real issue, or rather an issue due to previous backup versions, failures, repairs, etc. Also, I've been meaning to ask, previously (rdiff-backup 1.x) the permissions of all the files in the repo seemed to match the source, although I don't think it had to. I know the actual permissions are stored separately. Is that the case in the current version, or are they just approximately correct, i.e. things like read-only directories get write permission added? > > KR, Eric Regards Frank
Re: cross-platform backup tool Is anybody actively testing the beta version?
Hi, On 06/11/2022 02:00, Frank Crawford wrote: Well, I've been backup my test VMs with it and I've logged the issues I've found. And thank you for this! There is only one minor issue I still have outstanding, which relates to permissions in the repo, and I haven't really sorted out what the difference is yet. However, I wouldn't wait for this, as it is a minor item. Are we talking about https://github.com/rdiff-backup/rdiff-backup/issues/765 or do you have something more? KR, Eric
Re: cross-platform backup tool Is anybody actively testing the beta version?
Hi, On 05/11/2022 19:30, Patrik Dufresne wrote: I have yet to build and test on MacOS. I'm out of time lately so I can't give you an estimate. OK, no sweat, I would just want to release around Christmas respectively before end of the year. So give me a sign once you think you're done. KR, Eric I've tested the Rdiffweb against that version and it's working fine. I needed to adjust some stuff on restore since the output change a little bit. On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 11:21 AM EricZolf wrote: Hi, I'm getting out of stuff to do for the upcoming 2.2.0: of all the 34 foreseen issues [1], only one #103 is left, and it will slip into the next milestone as it requires too mucch effort to fulfill safely as part of the beta. We're in no hurry, and if someone is actively testing, which I'm encouraging, I'm more than happy to wait a bit more, but the beta won't get better if nobody does anything with it, so I could just release the next version. If you're testing, perhaps try to give me an estimate how much time more you need. Thanks, Eric PS: still no web designer volunteering to improve our homepage? [1] https://github.com/rdiff-backup/rdiff-backup/milestone/2 #103 https://github.com/rdiff-backup/rdiff-backup/issues/103
Re: cross-platform backup tool Is anybody actively testing the beta version?
On Sat, 2022-11-05 at 16:20 +0100, EricZolf wrote: > Hi, > > I'm getting out of stuff to do for the upcoming 2.2.0: of all the 34 > foreseen issues [1], only one #103 is left, and it will slip into the > next milestone as it requires too mucch effort to fulfill safely as > part > of the beta. > > We're in no hurry, and if someone is actively testing, which I'm > encouraging, I'm more than happy to wait a bit more, but the beta > won't > get better if nobody does anything with it, so I could just release > the > next version. Well, I've been backup my test VMs with it and I've logged the issues I've found. There is only one minor issue I still have outstanding, which relates to permissions in the repo, and I haven't really sorted out what the difference is yet. However, I wouldn't wait for this, as it is a minor item. > > If you're testing, perhaps try to give me an estimate how much time > more > you need. Unfortunately, I'll be away for a few weeks, so won't have much more chance to look at it further. > > Thanks, Eric > > PS: still no web designer volunteering to improve our homepage? > > [1] https://github.com/rdiff-backup/rdiff-backup/milestone/2 > #103 https://github.com/rdiff-backup/rdiff-backup/issues/103 Not me, my design skills are pretty poor. :-( Regards Frank
Re: cross-platform backup tool Is anybody actively testing the beta version?
I have yet to build and test on MacOS. I'm out of time lately so I can't give you an estimate. I've tested the Rdiffweb against that version and it's working fine. I needed to adjust some stuff on restore since the output change a little bit. On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 11:21 AM EricZolf wrote: > Hi, > > I'm getting out of stuff to do for the upcoming 2.2.0: of all the 34 > foreseen issues [1], only one #103 is left, and it will slip into the > next milestone as it requires too mucch effort to fulfill safely as part > of the beta. > > We're in no hurry, and if someone is actively testing, which I'm > encouraging, I'm more than happy to wait a bit more, but the beta won't > get better if nobody does anything with it, so I could just release the > next version. > > If you're testing, perhaps try to give me an estimate how much time more > you need. > > Thanks, Eric > > PS: still no web designer volunteering to improve our homepage? > > [1] https://github.com/rdiff-backup/rdiff-backup/milestone/2 > #103 https://github.com/rdiff-backup/rdiff-backup/issues/103 > > -- IKUS Software https://www.ikus-soft.com/ 514-971-6442 St-Colomban, QC J5K 1T9
cross-platform backup tool Is anybody actively testing the beta version?
Hi, I'm getting out of stuff to do for the upcoming 2.2.0: of all the 34 foreseen issues [1], only one #103 is left, and it will slip into the next milestone as it requires too mucch effort to fulfill safely as part of the beta. We're in no hurry, and if someone is actively testing, which I'm encouraging, I'm more than happy to wait a bit more, but the beta won't get better if nobody does anything with it, so I could just release the next version. If you're testing, perhaps try to give me an estimate how much time more you need. Thanks, Eric PS: still no web designer volunteering to improve our homepage? [1] https://github.com/rdiff-backup/rdiff-backup/milestone/2 #103 https://github.com/rdiff-backup/rdiff-backup/issues/103
