On 05.07.19 18:59, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 7/4/19 2:05 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 04.07.19 19:43, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> On 03.07.19 23:55, John Snow wrote:
This adds an "always" policy for bitmap synchronization. Regardless of if
the job succeeds or fails, the bitmap is *always*
On 7/4/19 2:05 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 04.07.19 19:43, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 03.07.19 23:55, John Snow wrote:
>>> This adds an "always" policy for bitmap synchronization. Regardless of if
>>> the job succeeds or fails, the bitmap is *always* synchronized. This means
>>> that for backups that
On 04.07.19 19:43, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 03.07.19 23:55, John Snow wrote:
>> This adds an "always" policy for bitmap synchronization. Regardless of if
>> the job succeeds or fails, the bitmap is *always* synchronized. This means
>> that for backups that fail part-way through, the bitmap retains a
On 03.07.19 23:55, John Snow wrote:
> This adds an "always" policy for bitmap synchronization. Regardless of if
> the job succeeds or fails, the bitmap is *always* synchronized. This means
> that for backups that fail part-way through, the bitmap retains a record of
> which sectors need to be
This adds an "always" policy for bitmap synchronization. Regardless of if
the job succeeds or fails, the bitmap is *always* synchronized. This means
that for backups that fail part-way through, the bitmap retains a record of
which sectors need to be copied out to accomplish a new backup using the
