BackupPC-users

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status of fuse for viewing backuppc backups

2008-12-29 09:51:58
Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] Status of fuse for viewing backuppc backups
From: "Jeffrey J. Kosowsky" <backuppc AT kosowsky DOT org>
To: "General list for user discussion, questions and support" <backuppc-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:50:15 -0500
Craig Barratt wrote at about 04:53:04 -0800 on Monday, December 29, 2008:
 > Tino writes:
 > 
 > > BTW: Why would that ease support for rsync 3.x? (Just curious.)
 > 
 > Instead of updating File::RsyncP to rsync 3.x protocol, the idea
 > would be to use native rsync on both sides of the connection,
 > and the BackupPC trickery would be hidden behind FUSE.

I like that aspect of it since updates to rsync protocol wouldn't then
rely on updates to File::RsyncP

 > It's just an idea at this point.  The rsync protocol isn't
 > documented; File::RsyncP was developed by carefully reading the
 > rsync source.  It's certainly possible to update File::RsyncP for
 > rsync 3.x, but the development and testing effort is relatively
 > high.  
Just out of curiousity, why isn't it documented? I am surprised that
such a ubiquitous building-block piece of open software is not
documented. In my (simple) mind, I think of undocumented protocols as
being at odds with the open software mentality.

 > Two benefits of using native rsync on the server side are
 > that a fuller set of command-line options could be used, and the
 > robustness would be better.  One drawback is the rsync checksum
 > caching wouldn't work with FUSE.

Wouldn't losing rsync checksum caching slow things down?
Also, one thing I like about protocol 30 is that I believe it uses md5
checksums and I was hoping that by storing the md5sum checksum as part
of the rsync checksum that we would now have a good md5sum checksum
that could also easily be used for checking file integrity.

 > If I follow this path I would still expect to also support existing
 > BackupPC 3.x XferMethods, including File::RsyncP (up to its existing
 > protocol 28).  So in that sense FUSE wouldn't be mandatory.
 > 
 > Craig
 > 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>