> No, not at all. As Albert said, it's more of a > --assume-modified-if-newer-than > option (although "--assume-potentially-modified-if-newer-than" would be > closer).
--assume-potentially-modified-if-newer-than-or-equally-new-as? ;) On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 11:29:22 -0800 Colin Percival <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/23/14 08:56, Daniel Staal wrote: > > --As of January 23, 2014 8:32:14 AM -0800, Colin Percival is alleged to > > have said: > >> That will effectively disable the "recognize when files haven't changed" > >> functionality, which will force Tarsnap to re-read files which it might > >> otherwise have not bothered to re-read. > > > > So, essentially for this purpose it's the same as the `--newer-than` > > option, and > > could be replaced with any of the --newer options, right? > > No, not at all. As Albert said, it's more of a > --assume-modified-if-newer-than > option (although "--assume-potentially-modified-if-newer-than" would be > closer). > > > (Of course, we are talking about ZFS snapshots here, which is already have > > an > > atomic creation and can be browsed like any other filesystem. I'm not sure > > if > > that applies to other forms of snapshots.) > > Atomic creation doesn't solve the problem of timestamps being too coarse > grained > to distinguish between a time just before and a time just after the snapshot > was > created. > > -- > Colin Percival > Security Officer Emeritus, FreeBSD | The power to serve > Founder, Tarsnap | www.tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid >
