[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [rdiff-backup-users] ACLS
From: |
Ben Escoto |
Subject: |
Re: [rdiff-backup-users] ACLS |
Date: |
Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:38:13 -0800 |
>>>>> "GF" == Greg Freemyer <address@hidden>
>>>>> wrote the following on Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:02:42 -0500
GF> I've just discovered your project. In your opinion, is it
GF> production ready, or does it have limitations like "no files
GF> over 2 GB".
Well I don't know about "production ready", but it seems to work for a
number of people (including me). Right now I am working on the error
policy, which has changed between various versions. I am pretty sure
now that version 0.11.2 will have session-level atomicity.
(Note to people on list who discussed this earlier: I did write some
journaling code, but in the process realized that it will probably be
simpler to make sure all the changes are written in a predictable
order. The session after a crash will then do the equivalent of an
fsck and correct all the errors. Having the metadata makes this much
easier.)
About the 2GB limit, I was recently informed of a new problem.
See:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=5470&atid=105470&func=detail&aid=683061
The upshot is python's gzip module cannot write compressed files
longer than 2 (4?) GB. So files greater than 2GB are ok as long as
rdiff-backup never has to write a large compressed volume. (This
would be the case if, for instance, the large file was very
compressable or didn't change much between sessions.)
One workaround is to use --no-compression[-regexp] to make sure your
large files don't get compressed.
GF> Are you handling ACLs? I ask because I want to backup a Samba
GF> Server running on an ACL enable FS. (i.e. XFS)
GF> If your not yet handling ACLs, is in the plans?
I don't see any reason not to handle ACLs, but my system doesn't have
them at the moment. Maybe in 0.13.0.
--
Ben Escoto
pgpXL65lTiu6V.pgp
Description: PGP signature