On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 16:06:15 +0000 Colin Percival <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 03/08/14 07:24, tarsnap wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 14:41:50 +0000 > > Colin Percival <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'd recommend using the --checkpoint-bytes option with a fairly low > >> setting (e.g., --checkpoint-bytes 32M) so that you'll have lots of > >> checkpoints created. That way when an archive fails you'll still > >> have the first section of the archive stored -- and that data can > >> then be used for deduplication purposes when you create another > >> archive, which will make future archives use less bandwidth and > >> complete faster. > > > > Thanks for your reply. > > So I have to do 2 things: > > 1) add the checkpoints option > > 2) create another (NOT the same) archive? > > You can try creating an archive with the same name as you used > before. If it fails, that means the previous archive got created > successfully. Ok. Just for confirmation: this will re-use the previously sent files/blocks of a file? > >> Of course, finding an internet connection which doesn't break for 5 > >> minutes at a time would be ideal. (5 minutes is how long tarsnap > >> will keep on trying to reconnect.) > > > > The internet connection breaks down when the power goes out, which > > happens quite frequently: 2 times a day for 2 hours each. > > The laptop runs longer than 5 minutes on its own battery, which > > means tarsnap will always 'give up'. > > > > Which brings me to the following feature request: > > A command line option to set the > > 'retry time' (from 5 min. to inf., and frequency--if not automatic > > as function of 'retry time'). > > The attached patch adds a completely untested and undocumented > --retry-forever option. Let me know if it works and is useful. :-) Thanks! I will study how to apply patches and test it out, as soon as I have the time. I just saw your signature mentions 'Emeritus'. Does this mean tarsnap service will cease in the near future? tnx
