On 03/09/14 17:58, Tim Anderson wrote:
> On 10/03/14 10:08, Colin Percival wrote:
>> The answer is that if I get hit by a bus tomorrow, Tarsnap will probably not
>> survive indefinitely without me. That said, the service is very stable on a
>> day-to-day basis, so if anything happens to me it is v
On 10/03/14 10:08, Colin Percival wrote:
On 03/09/14 03:46, Arthur Chance wrote:
Without wishing to be morbid, I presume you have structures and procedures in
place to ensure Tarsnap Backup Inc continues to offer its services indefinitely
in case you're kidnapped by aliens or eaten by bears(*)?
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Colin Percival wrote:
>
> I hereby pledge to do everything in my power to avoid being abducted by
> aliens,
> eaten by bears, or hit by buses.
We need someone with graphic-novel skillz to illustrate the confluence
of these three threats, with Colin fending them a
On 03/09/14 03:46, Arthur Chance wrote:
> Without wishing to be morbid, I presume you have structures and procedures in
> place to ensure Tarsnap Backup Inc continues to offer its services
> indefinitely
> in case you're kidnapped by aliens or eaten by bears(*)?
That's a sensible question, althou
On Sun, 9 Mar 2014 16:22:57 +
Colin Percival wrote:
> On 03/09/14 09:21, tarsnap wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Mar 2014 15:36:28 +
> > Colin Percival wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/09/14 06:57, tarsnap wrote:
> >>> I'm afraid something went wrong, any idea what it is?
> >>>
> >>> [user@fedora-18-x64-use
I was actually thinking the same thing - you know, succession plan,
operational continuity, code escrow, etc. etc.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Arthur Chance wrote:
> Without wishing to be morbid, I presume you have structures and procedures
> in place to ensure Tarsnap Backup Inc continues to
On 03/09/14 06:57, tarsnap wrote:
> I'm afraid something went wrong, any idea what it is?
>
> [user@fedora-18-x64-use netpacket]$ patch netpacket_op.c <
> tarsnap_retryforever.patch
^^^ this command line should have been just
$ patch < tarsnap_retryforever.patch
since the patch modifies several
On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 16:06:15 +
Colin Percival wrote:
> On 03/08/14 07:24, tarsnap wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 14:41:50 +
> > Colin Percival wrote:
> >> I'd recommend using the --checkpoint-bytes option with a fairly low
> >> setting (e.g., --checkpoint-bytes 32M) so that you'll have lot
On Sat, 08 Mar 2014 14:56:29 -0800
Colin Percival wrote:
> On 03/08/14 14:51, tarsnap wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 16:06:15 +
> > Colin Percival wrote:
> >> You can try creating an archive with the same name as you used
> >> before. If it fails, that means the previous archive got created
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 08:13:47PM +, Luís Avelino Relógio wrote:
> One could capture the .exclude files prior to the execution of tarsnap and
> generate a -X exclude.file
find / -name .exclude -execdir xargs -a {} readlink -m \; > exclude.file
Best,
--
Gabriel
Without wishing to be morbid, I presume you have structures and
procedures in place to ensure Tarsnap Backup Inc continues to offer its
services indefinitely in case you're kidnapped by aliens or eaten by
bears(*)? The web site says very little about the corporate side of
tarsnap and as I'm alw
11 matches
Mail list logo
