This issue has already been discussed, I just wanted to point out an
assumption I don't agree with.
Marcel> In principle it is unnecessary to store the same content twice
Marcel> on the same volume. I assume that, during restore, a volume
Marcel> can either be read completely or completely gets l
On 20 Jul 2005 at 14:44, Joshua Kugler wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 July 2005 13:51, Marcel Gsteiger wrote:
> > What do you think about this?
>
> I think you didn't read the archives. :) This idea has been discussed, but
> it
> would take a lot of planning, and probably some structural changes. I
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 13:51, Marcel Gsteiger wrote:
> What do you think about this?
I think you didn't read the archives. :) This idea has been discussed, but it
would take a lot of planning, and probably some structural changes. It's an
idea that may be implemented some day, but as of rig
Hi all,
I am currently backing up several similar systems onto one volume, as probably
most people do. To save time and space, I have the following suggestion:
In principle it is unnecessary to store the same content twice on the same
volume. I assume that, during restore, a volume can either b
