From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Bormuth Subject: Re: My Dad suggests a redundant copies plugin Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:35:43 +0200 Message-ID: <20051025103543.GA11986@kruemel> References: <435DC714.6000505@namesys.com> <20051025072537.GB8402@favonius> <435DFAA5.9050206@namesys.com> Reply-To: Ingo Bormuth Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <435DFAA5.9050206@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: reiserfs-list@namesys.com Cc: ingo@bormuth.org On 2005-10-25 02:28, Hans Reiser wrote: > > >And what is the advantage? You are not protected against a lot of disk > >failures (only against bad blocks, right?). > > It is only for very important files for computers which have only one > hard drive. Some of the work is with changing fsck..... > I agree, real backups are the major weappon against classical data loss due to hardware failure. Other quite anoying and common causes for data loss are accidentally deleted, overwritten or modified files. A _simple_ versioning plugin would be very nice to have (I'd definitly use it in /etc). Anyway, oun could then easily add the proposed redundancy feature (implemented as the files version number zero). -- Ingo Bormuth, voicebox & telefax: +49-12125-10226517 '(~o-o~)' public key 86326EC9, http://ibormuth.efil.de/contact ---ooO--(.)--Ooo---