Re: [Duplicity-talk] Request for code review : New proposed feature removing incrementals of old full backups

[Kenneth Loafman]

Olivier,

I've looked at it and I'm thinking we should go back to the old way of
doing clean, i.e. delete all but the last (active) set of incrementals.
 We're saving the incrementals so the 3rd-party wrappers can display a
list of the contents of previous backups, but that's confusing and a
complete waste of space.

I'm thinking that each manifest should have a list of the current
contents in JSON format so that listing old backups just means
downloading their manifests.  Thoughts?  Everyone.

Back to your original question: the code looks good and if we decide to
go this route, I'll test it and get it into the base.

...Ken

Olivier Berger wrote:
> Ping ?
> 
> Le samedi 10 avril 2010 à 11:00 +0200, Olivier Berger a écrit :
>> Hi.
>>
>> (It seems no one really saw my previous message so restarting with a new
>> thread)
>>
>> I've tried and implement a new duplicity command that would allow to
>> remove incremental backups from old backup chains [0].
>>
>> It seems it's working from the new tests I've made (previous problems
>> were caused by file access rights I think).
>>
>> May I ask for some code review of the bzr branch for my proposed
>> implementation at [1] ?
>>
>> The goal of this new option is to allow some backup "retention" policy
>> like where only increments of the last month would be kept, and for
>> older times, only monthly full backups (next step will be to add that to
>> backupninja's duplicity handler, I think).
>>
>> Many thanks in advance.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> [0] : https://bugs.launchpad.net/duplicity/+bug/542482
>> [1] : https://code.launchpad.net/~olivierberger/+junk/dupl-542482
>>
>> -------- Message transféré --------
>> De: Olivier Berger <address@hidden>
>> Reply-to: Discussion of the backup program duplicity
>> <address@hidden>
>> À: Discussion of the backup program duplicity
>> <address@hidden>
>> Sujet: Proposed implementation - review request Re: [Duplicity-talk]
>> Removing incrementals of old full backups
>> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:58:06 +0200
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> Le samedi 20 mars 2010 à 11:53 +0100, address@hidden a écrit :
>>
>>>>> 3) there is currently no way to cherry pick delete some backups. If you
>>>>> really want to you can have a look in your backup repository and
>>>>> manually/scripted delete the backups you do not need anymore. The file
>>>>> names are pretty descriptive.
>>>>>
>>>> Hence the need for some kind of delete-old-incrementals command IMHO.
>>> as always, go ahead and implement it or (as you did) file a feature request
>> -> https://bugs.launchpad.net/duplicity/+bug/542482
>>
>> I've tried and implement it, then.
>>
>> You'll find in lp:~olivierberger/+junk/dupl-542482 a proposed
>> implementation, which consists as a new command
>> "remove-all-inc-of-but-n-full" which is a variant of
>> remove-all-but-n-full.
>> Only at the moment of the deletion of the set, will it check whether it
>> is actually incremental (and delete) or full (and will then keep it).
>>
>> It should work... however, I can't seem to see the files deleted really
>> from a local backup backend :-/
>>
>> I wonder if it is me or if the code of remove-all-but-n-full wouldn't
>> work either... :-/ something as the delete() function of sets doesn't
>> seem to actually unlink anything on the disk. Haven't had time to debug
>> any more, but any advise would be much welcome.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature