[rdiff-backup-users] Re: How much metadata to store

[Gregor Zattler]

Hi Ben et al.,

it's me again, the guy who thinks it's a good idea to have tools
to handle (splitt, copy, move, merge) rdiff-backups (mirror plus
rdiff-backup-diffs):

* Ben Escoto <address@hidden> [02. Dez. 2002]:
> Originally I had envisaged only saving the metadata which could not be
> stored on the mirror system.  But Bud and Dave have noted some
> advantages to storing metadata for all mirror files:
> 
> DS> ... eliminates stat/open/close of a billion files
> 
> BB> A metadata approach seems to open the way for compressed
> BB> mirrors... 
> 
> So I wonder how desirable these features would be to people, or if
> anyone can think of other things to do with more metadata.

Storing *all* metadata does not only allow for compressed files
systems and the like but also to later move a rdiff-backup (mirror
plus rdiff-backup-diffs) to another file system [if file names are
converted to something every (or nearly every: 8+3 perhaps isn't
sufficient) file system is able to handle].  This would provide
more flexibility.  Until now *i* do not need this feature.

But:  Having an easy accessible mirror is great too.  Changing
file names to something shorter with only 7 bit us-ascii letters
would eleminate this easy access.

It's possible to allow for both usages if 

a) all metadata is stored but actually mungling metadata on the
   mirror side is an option

and/or

b) rdiff-backup could reproduce a mirror for a given file system
   with as much metadata provided by this file system as
   possible. 


I see this would add more complexity but also more flexibility.


Thanks for this great tool, Gregor