public inbox for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: GEO <1g2e3o4@gmail.com>
To: Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Incremental backup over writable snapshot
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 19:57:03 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3285782.sx6x1p7v9y@linuxpc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <EEA604EA-983B-4F5F-88B5-4FD229FEC61F@colorremedies.com>

On Wednesday 19 February 2014 10:00:49 Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2014, at 6:45 AM, GEO <1g2e3o4@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I do not like the idea of making subvolumes of all directories I am not
> > interested in backing up.
> 
> Why? It addresses your use case.
> 
> Chris Murphy

I would prefer the idea of not snapshotting every directory I do not want to 
include, as there are almost more that I am not interested in. 

My question would simply be: Does the method going over the writeable snapshot 
and deleting things always lead to the same incremental end result as marking 
directories as snapshots that I am not interested in (apart from the 
additional empty directories created in case of the latter)?

Furthermore hidden directories in home change very often, meaning if I install 
additional software, additional hidden directories may be created.  So my 
script would have to mark them as snapshots every time.
If I have hidden files, I cannot mark files as snapshots, so it is clear that my 
method makes sense. 

Once I have marked these directories snapshots and I want to create snapshots 
of my whole home subvolume I would always additionally have to specify those.

So it makes the whole situation less manageable. 
Apart from that I find marking every directory I am not interested in as 
snapshots highly inelegant. 

So my question would be, if my preferred method is as reliable as the 
suggested method. 

Hope that's on the mailing list now :-). 


Thanks

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-02-19 18:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-02-19 13:45 Incremental backup over writable snapshot GEO
2014-02-19 17:00 ` Chris Murphy
     [not found]   ` <2285169.jbztTl7OC0@linuxpc>
2014-02-19 17:26     ` Chris Murphy
     [not found]       ` <16991840.tqyQc6bZHr@linuxpc>
2014-02-19 17:51         ` Chris Murphy
2014-02-19 20:20           ` Kai Krakow
2014-02-20  3:31             ` Kai Krakow
2014-02-20 11:03             ` Duncan
2014-02-20 21:16               ` Kai Krakow
2014-02-21 14:44     ` GEO
2014-02-21 18:56       ` Kai Krakow
2014-02-19 18:57   ` GEO [this message]
2014-02-20 13:20   ` GEO
2014-02-20 23:04     ` Kai Krakow
2014-02-27 13:10 ` GEO
2014-02-28  6:54   ` Duncan
2014-02-27 14:36 ` GEO

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3285782.sx6x1p7v9y@linuxpc \
    --to=1g2e3o4@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lists@colorremedies.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox