[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Duplicity-talk] Progress feedback

From: Kenneth Loafman
Subject: Re: [Duplicity-talk] Progress feedback
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:44:38 -0600
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20080925)

Michael Terry wrote:
> Now that machine-readable logging landed (thanks Ken!), I'd like to
> turn my attention to machine-readable progress feedback.
> I propose a two-fold approach:
> 1) Add periodic level 5 verbosity NOTICEs that say something like
> "Processed 5M of files".  The machine-readable version would look
> like:
> NOTICE 2 5000\n
> . Processed 5M of files\n
> \n
> The interesting difference there is the extra argument after the
> message id.  It's a machine-readable version of the info in the
> human-readable message.
> The count would be against un-compressed size (i.e. on-disk size).
> That would work for backing up.  When restoring, the situation is
> reversed.  Duplicity must know how many volumes are on the other side.
>  It could send notices like:
> NOTICE 3 5000 1400\n
> . . Processed 5M of 14M\n
> \n
> Because duplicity knows total and current count on restore.
> 2) Add a --dry-run option.  This would do normal activity, except
> wouldn't tar/send data.  It would still emit the above notices.
> When backing up, --dry-run and progress NOTICEs would allow a frontend
> to first run duplicity with --dry-run and then know the total size of
> processed files.  It would then run duplicity a second time without
> --dry-run to do the actual backup.
> It would be nice if the when backing up, duplicity could give us a
> total, and we wouldn't have to do --dry-run, but I suppose it's not
> worth it for duplicity to scan first itself just for the purpose of
> getting a total count.
> How does the above sound?  I'll code it, but I'm curious what Ken and
> others have to say about the above design.

I think it sounds good.

The --dry-run works quite well and I think it might be possible to
implement duplicity as two-pass, or perhaps two-thread, to handle the
dry-run option if the users think such a thing would help.  This would
allow true progress notification once the dry-run was complete.

Duplicity would still need to work with or without --dry-run.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]