[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Duplicity-talk] Another Newbie Question - sorry

From: Tim Riemenschneider
Subject: Re: [Duplicity-talk] Another Newbie Question - sorry
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:59:04 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100620 Iceowl/1.0b1 Icedove/3.0.5

Am 08.07.2010 02:43, schrieb Bob Smither:
> I have been wondering about this for a couple of days and cannot find an
> answer.
> I noticed that running du on an archive and on the source directory
> sometimes gives very different results.  I have an archive that du
> reports at ~3MB while running du on the source directory gives ~20MB.  
> I was wondering if all the data was really there.
The archives are compressed, so to compare the sizes you would have to
compare it against a conventional tar.gz of the directory. (For a full
backup. A incremental backup would probably be even smaller, since it
only contains the changes (only the changed bytes) of the files. In this
regard duplicity differs from other backup-programs, where "incremental"
means: if the modification-time of the file differs, backup that file)
> Duplicity modes verify, collection-status, and list-current-files run
> with no reported differences.
> Finally I decrypted the difftar.gpg file (about 3MB) and the decrypted
> file has the missing bytes in it.
The compression (or here: decompression) is handled by gpg, so manually
decrypting a .gpg-file also decompresses it. (Running gzip again on the
decrypting file should again give a size of 3 MB)


reply via email to

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