ยท Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:07:25 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:
At least I wouldn't store everything in the same directory. It would
of course be a good idea to seperate things.
sigh When did I ever mention using a single directory to mix up all
backups?
Correct. However you said, that you need to access it (Linux backup
directories) from Windows too. And that's the main point and the point
that hasn't been answered yet: Why do you think, that such a need
exists?
Suppose, you've got a project on which you work on both Windows and
Linux
On Mon, 12 May 2008 15:07:06 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:
And last, but not least: Why should backup directories be shared in
the first place?
They shouldn't, and I never stated that they should.
--
Neil Bothwick
I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.
On 12 May 2008, at 14:07, Michael Schmarck wrote:
... Reasons:
- DOS Filesystems (fat, ntfs) don't allow to store all the metadata
you find on Linux.
- Linux filesystems (ext*, reiser, ...) don't allow to store all
the metadata you find on Windows.
- Sharing backup space means, that it get's
Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008 09:57:02 +0200, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
rsync is good, but has its own disadvantages, notably the lack of
compression and the reliance on the destination filesystem to preserve
permissions.
Can you elaborate more on the latter,
On Wed, 07 May 2008 16:41:17 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:
Can you elaborate more on the latter, please? What exactly is rsync
relying on and which fs wouldn't meet the requirements.
FAT on an external drive,
Why not put ext* or reiserfs or whatever on such a drive?
Because you
6 matches
Mail list logo
