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
next prev 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