Re: [BackupPC-users] hard links, tar vs. rsync

[Paul F. <pg...@fo...>]

i wrote:
 > many thanks, craig.  somehow i overlooked this response until
 > today, and in my earlier testing, i hadn't added '--hard-links'. 
 > i hadn't yet had time to debug my lack hard links, so i'm glad i
 > found your reply.

hmmm.  it seems i may have created a problem for myself.

i've been doing backups with tar, for forever.

i have files in the pool that are marked as hardlink, and which
restore as such (using tar, at least -- haven't tried rsync, and
i'm not too concerned about that.)

a few days ago i tried switching that host to use rsync, but i
neglected to add the "--hard-links" argument.  i did a single
full backup.  the same files in the pool (which were hard-links in
tar backups) were now just regular unlinked files.

today, having found craig's message, i added "--hard-links" to
RsyncArgs, and did another full, thinking it would fix it.  but
the same files are still just files, and not hard-links.  
the full backup command was:
  Running: /usr/bin/ssh -x -l root stump /usr/bin/rsync --server --sender --numeric-ids --perms --owner --group -D --one-file-system --hard-links --links --times --block-size=2048 --recursive --ignore-times . /

another test, using a different, newly converted (i.e. from tar
to rsync) host, tells me that a fresh full backup using the
correct --hard-lins argument works fine, and hard-links are preserved
correctly.

so -- is there anything i can do to "fix" a host where there are
files in the wrong "link" state, presumably as a result of
running an rsync backup without '--hard-links'?

paul
=---------------------
 paul fox, pg...@fo... (arlington, ma, where it's 37.4 degrees)