Hi,
[can we agree on avoiding tabs in subject lines?]
Les Mikesell wrote on 2009-09-25 23:25:35 -0500 [Re: [BackupPC-users] Backing
up a BackupPC host - *using rsync+tarPCCopy*]:
> Fernando Laudares Camargos wrote:
> > [...]
> > I'm doing two things (altough I'm not sure that answer your question
> > correctly):
> >
> > 1) rsync of cpool without --delete (so, cpool will keep growing, no files
> > will ever be deleted. I assume that's fine apart from the fact it will take
> > more disk space).
>
> BackupPC_nightly may rename chains of hash collisions in cpool as part of its
> cleanup. If such a rename occurs between the rsync runs and the
> BackupPC_tarPCCopy or restore, you'll end up with links to the wrong files.
actually, I don't believe you even need that to happen for problems to occur.
As far as an rsync pool update is concerned, the contents of some pool files
will have changed if a chain gets renumbered. rsync has no concept of renamed
files, and even if it did, from looking at the pool alone it couldn't know
what to do (because that depends on the other links pointing to the file).
If you are using --inplace, I believe the destination pool files will be
overwritten, thereby making *previously existing links to them* point to
incorrect content. You're probably not doing that, so you will probably "only"
have the pool file deleted and replaced with a new one with new contents. As a
result, the existing links in the pc/ directories will no longer take part in
pooling in your copy. You'll have a new independant copy of the contents under
the new pool file name which subsequent backups might link to (providing it's
not renamed again). I really don't see you gaining anything from running rsync
*without* --delete. With --delete, you could at least expire backups from your
copy (i.e. pc/host/num/ trees) and get back some space (well, more space,
really, because you get back some space from files severed from pooling by
chain renumbering as described above).
What exactly are you trying to do, anyway?
1. Have a copy of the pool that BackupPC could run on if the original pool is
lost, or
2. have a copy of the pool suitable for *restoring files only* if the original
pool is lost, or
3. something else?
You're not achieving (1), though (2) would probably work.
How much "more disk space" have you got for your copy?
Regards,
Holger
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf
_______________________________________________
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/
|
