|
From: | Nicolas Jungers |
Subject: | Re: [Fwd: Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Restarting development] |
Date: | Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:55:54 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100404 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0.4 |
On 04/06/2010 06:35 PM, Josh Nisly wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I think starting another project isn't an all bad solution - I think we may have increasingly divergent goals. For myself, having a current mirror is well worth the cost in disk space; it means that it's much easier to recover from a file corruption or program bug. OTOH, loosing this requirement opens the door to other features.
I don't see how relaxing that requirement shall save space, unless you're speaking about compressed baseline backup.
OTOH, I agree that the immediate access to the last copy is a plus (oops recovery), but in the case of delayed recovery - several days or generation - I think it's more an exploration of the metadata that count. And then I'm not convinced that the filesystem is the best interface.
Nicolas
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |