Hendrik Friedel wrote:

>>It would be nice to be able to use WindowsXP+'s index as a reference or
>> have the rsyncd on the windows machine maintain all the checksum
>> information but I know of no way and no plans to do this.
>
> Another option would be the archive bit, wouldn't it?

Read: The Windows archive bit is evil and must be stopped
http://www.tunexp.com/news/windows-story-669.html

"I have a major problem with the Windows archive bit, and so should you.
At the very least, backup product vendors should give us the option of
not using it — without penalty. Here's why: If the "ready for archiving"
bit is set on a file in Windows, it indicates that a file is new or
changed, and that it should be backed up in an incremental backup. Once
this happens, the archive bit is cleared. Therefore, the first problem
with the archive bit is that it should be called the backup bit, because
backups are not archives.

The biggest problem with the archive bit, however, is that the process
assumes that only one application will clear the archive bit, when there
could actually be several of them."


- Kurt

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
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/