Craig Barratt wrote at about 04:13:59 -0800 on Monday, December 29, 2008:
 > Jeff Kosowsky" writes:
 > 
 > > I had been thinking of writing code to implement a robust fuse
 > > filesystem for BackupPC backups but then I saw that John Craig (and
 > > perhaps others) had started to write code.
 > > 
 > > While the code still seems to be at the proof-of-concept I think the idea
 > > is very powerful and extensible.
 > 
 > I agree.  I've been following the suggestions and proof-of-concept
 > code with interest.
 > 
 > I actually believe having a FUSE implementation that supports writing
 > would be the best way to support rsync 3.x (and any other xfer methods
 > for that matter).  Assuming the performance was ok, the time-reversed
 > delta format for storing backups that I'm planning for BackupPC 4.x
 > would be most easily implemented with FUSE.

That's great to hear... I can't wait.
I would be *very* interested in hearing your (informal) roadmap of
where you would like to take BackupPC (and where you wouldn't).

As I have mentioned before, there is an almost endless amount of
extensions that could be added ranging from very modest tweaks to
whole new directions that would fundamentally transform BackupPC. It
would be good to hear your views and to have an active discussion
among users about what is the right balance of extensions and new
functionality.


 > 
 > I've been working on various CVS checkins for a 3.2.0 release
 > (finally!), so I haven't had a chance to play with FUSE, other
 > than installing it and perl FUSE on my CentOS 5.2 system.
 > 
 > One question I'm curious about: if FUSE becomes a required part of
 > BackupPC 4.x, does that unduly complicate installation or reduce the
 > number of distros that BackupPC can readily run on?  I realize FUSE
 > is standard on recent 2.6.x kernels, but CentOS 5.2, as one example,
 > doesn't enable FUSE, and it was actually quite a pain installing it,
 > since the rpm package I found didn't install the kernel module.
 > 
 > Craig

Well, I think you have answered your own question in part. FUSE is and
has been standard on current kernels for probably 2 years now. So, any
recent distro will certainly have it included and I imagine by the
time 4.x is released that even "older" distros like CentOS and RHEL
will have it ;)

Also, fuse is becoming pretty standard given that some basic tools
like ntfs-3g and sshfs all are done in fuse. I would think that even
if not yet included in older distros, that it would be supported given
its fundamental nature. I'm actually surprised that it was a pain in
CentOS 5.2 given that Redhat (and/or 3rd party repos) typically do a
good job of backporting newer functionality. But you are right that if
it is not in the kernel yet, then you will need a separate kernel
module package for each kernel update which can be a pita if you are
not expecting that or used to that...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/