From: Dan L. <da...@la...> - 2008-10-09 23:58:45
|
Dan Langille wrote: > Dupree, Craig wrote: >> Looking through the current HTML manual I see: >> >> >> >> “In addition, if you move a directory rather than copy it, the files in >> it do not have their modification time (st_mtime) or their attribute >> change time (st_ctime) changed. As a consequence, those files will >> probably not be backed up by an Incremental or Differential backup which >> depend solely on these time stamps. If you move a directory, and wish it >> to be properly backed up, it is generally preferable to copy it, then >> delete the original.” >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> “As noted above, if you move a directory rather than copy it, the files >> in it do not have their modification time (st_mtime) or their attribute >> change time (st_ctime) changed. As a consequence, those files will >> probably not be backed up by an Incremental or Differential backup which >> depend solely on these time stamps. If you move a directory, and wish it >> to be properly backed up, it is generally preferable to copy it, then >> delete the original. Alternatively, you can move the directory, then use >> the *touch* program to update the timestamps.” >> >> >> >> Why? Shouldn’t bacula treat these as a newly created directory with new >> files in it, and back them up? This is a big burden requiring people >> to remember whether they should use cp or mv to move files. Besides >> this, and the disk space issue, mv is a simple pointer redirection, and >> might be faster than a cp depending on how high in the tree you are >> working on. > > These apply only to incremental and differential backups. Those files > will be backed up on the next full backup. I meant to add more. bacula-fd is not stateful. It does not know what files were included in previous backups. That's why. Read here: http://www.bacula.org/en/?page=projects Look for "Item 1: Accurate restoration of renamed/deleted files" (the 2nd instance on that page). Work is underway to improve that. |