Re: [rdiff-backup-users] rdiff-backup problems (FC4 -> VFAT)

[Wiebe Cazemier]

Bob McKay wrote:
> Thanks Wiebe,
>     Sorry I've been offline on this, I spent the last five days chasing 
> an obsure bug in
> my courseware s/w.
>     Well, we now have a clear definition of the problem: rdiff-backup 
> fails in attempting
> to backup to FAT32, but succeeds fine when backing up to the fedora 
> logical volume
> (I'm not sure what the fs is - whatever core 4 installs as the default 
> right out of the box).

Type "mount" and you'll see. I guess it's ext3, or perhaps reiserfs.

> The command file for backing up to FAT32, and the resulting error file, 
> are listed below
> (please ignore any extraneous <cr>s, they're a result of the paste). I 
> don't have much
> choice about the file system format for the backup, I need to use the 
> same file system to
> share a HD between windows and linux, far as I know the only file system 
> they can both
> write to is FAT32. My understanding was that FAT32 was one of the 
> supported file
> structures for rdiff-backup?

FAT32 is indeed supported. My concern is more with the filesystem itself. It's 
not very sophosticated and it's unreliable. After all, it's a souped-up version 
of a floppy-disk filesystem (FAT12).

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, one of the things rdiff-backup uses for storing and 
retrieving information, is the filesystem itself. Modification times are taken 
directly out of the filesystem I believe. Now, it also stores this info in meta 
files, right? The thing is, which of those does it use when both are available? 
If it uses the actual filesystem, your backup archive may get corrupt when 
windows strawls through it with a "find file" command. Or, you get .desktop 
(etc) files in every dir. Also for this reason, I think it's best to store your 
backup somewhere where it is not touched.

Is you data worth 80-100 dollars? If so, buy second harddisk (possible an 
external one, USB2). It's a very cheap backup medium. Of course, you could also 
buy two extra and build that RAID1 array as well ;)

As for the error you're getting, it seems like a bug, I think you can report it. 
There is no error message that I can see, only warnings.