From: PeterKorman <cal...@ei...> - 2003-01-10 18:48:41
|
With reasonably small changes, a dump exclusion list of nearly unlimited size could be supported. It would mean an internal binary search to interrogate the exclusion list during file write and a reasonably good performance sort routine to put the exclusion list in order to make the binary search possible. A heap sort would give order O log N worst case performance. After the sort a quick walk through the list to trim any duplicate entries would be a low cost operation as well. Price performance on Tape drives is awful. OTOH a big ATA disk is fast and comparably cheap. In many cases, systems never need to hold more than 3 L0 dumps each 19 days apart. The thing about backing up to an non-removable drive is that you really dont want to back up anything you don't have to back up. Web browser cache directories, for instance, never need backing up. Mailing lists often dont need backing up. You can partition file systems so that the junk goes to those not backed up, but that also limits flexibility of storage utilization. So if you have 2 60G drives, and the first one is 15% transient junk, then you can be pretty safe doing compressed dumps to the second drive. Big exclusion lists become pretty important because there's LOTZ of small transient files. A fast search is especially important if you have say 500000 files in a L0 dump, of which you want to exclude 170000. My 3 questions are these: Does anyone think the maintainer would be interested in a patch like the one I describe? If so, where would the person who generates the patch send it? How much time might pass between submission of the patch and it's inclusion in the distribution assuming the patch is worth a damn? Thanks. Cheers, JPK |