Backup Central

Hello,

I think it would be useful to specify an alternative location for the
rdiff-backup-data directory. Something like rdiff-backup
--data-location. Is there any reason why it needs to be a subdirectory
of the mirror directory?

I found this thread on the same topic:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/rdiff-backup-users/2003-09/msg00031.html

I'd be happy to work on this if no one has started to implement the
feature.

--
mrb

Mike Borsuk <mrb < at > wiredsoul.org>
wrote the following on Sun, 4 Dec 2005 21:14:58 -0500

I think it would be useful to specify an alternative location for
the rdiff-backup-data directory. Something like rdiff-backup
--data-location. Is there any reason why it needs to be a
subdirectory of the mirror directory?

I found this thread on the same topic:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/rdiff-backup-users/2003-09/msg00031.html

I'd be happy to work on this if no one has started to implement the
feature.

Is it really necessary to have alternate locations? It would be a
mess (and pointless?) to backup an rdiff-backup repository with
rdiff-backup.


--
Ben Escoto

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 07:42:18PM -0600, Ben Escoto wrote:
Is it really necessary to have alternate locations? It would be a

Necessary no, obviously not.

mess (and pointless?) to backup an rdiff-backup repository with
rdiff-backup.

I agree. But what does that have to do with this?

My reasoning involved keeping all my rdiff-backup directories on one
partition, in order to limit their size, and also to have the mirror
directories free of rdiff-backup data for doing secondary backups on
those. There are definitely workarounds but these seem like valuable
features to me (although I may be missing something).

--
mrb

Mike Borsuk <mrb < at > wiredsoul.org>
wrote the following on Sun, 11 Dec 2005 21:00:30 -0500

I agree. But what does that have to do with this?

Oh, I thought the previous discussion had something to do with that,
but your reason is better anyway.

My reasoning involved keeping all my rdiff-backup directories on one
partition, in order to limit their size, and also to have the mirror
directories free of rdiff-backup data for doing secondary backups on
those. There are definitely workarounds but these seem like
valuable features to me (although I may be missing something).

Well, part of what fixing the rdiff-backup-data location does is
preclude options like the one you mention. Right now, (unless you try
hard to mess this up) they have to be on the same file system. Off
the top of my head, this has three practical consequences:

1) We can move files from the mirror to the rdiff-backup-data
directory,
2) Files can be hard linked from mirror to increments directory (not
sure if this matters),
3) The mirror and rdiff-backup-data dir have the same characteristics
(acls, case-sensitivity, etc.), so we don't need to test both.

I think 1 and 2 don't matter much, but 3 is a pain. There are
probably some other consequences I haven't thought of.

So, I've resisted a --data-location type option in the past because it
would be more added work/complexity than it appears, and may not be
worth it.


--
Ben Escoto

Also, I should mention that another possibility is allowing the
rdiff-backup-data directory to be on another machine entirely. (By
specifying, for instance, --data-location user < at > host::/dir.)
Originally I considered this but chose the laziest option, which is
restricting it to mirror/rdiff-backup-data.

So here might be a way to summarize the options:

1) Data dir must be mirror/rdiff-backup-data (status quo).
2) Data dir must be in the mirror directory, but may not be named
rdiff-backup-data.
3) Data dir must be on the same machine, but can be in a different
directory/partition.
4) Data dir can be on a different machine.


--
Ben Escoto