Re: using FSevents for backup - is it reliable enough?
Re: using FSevents for backup - is it reliable enough?
- Subject: Re: using FSevents for backup - is it reliable enough?
- From: Stanley Sieler <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 00:28:27 -0800
Re:
> These may have been excluded by the applications that created them. Can't say for sure.
>
>> /Users/sieler/Library/Icons/WebpageIcons.db
I'd have expected such exclusions to be via metadata files (like the ones below :) ...
I'm somewhat disappointed that there appears to be some other mechanism to implement the TM exclusion.
(In general, I prefer exclusions/metadata to be 'near" an object (like via dot-underbar files) instead
of "away" from an object (like in a database) ... it's almost always a safer/stronger approach than
application-specific dbs tracking files.)
I should have clarified that I expected a "they're excluded" answer ... and that I'm mostly fine with that.
(As the author of a number of backup mechanisms/products over the last 40 years, I really value the
ability to (a) have *everything* backed up, and (b) be able to easily determine why some files aren't
getting backed up (e.g., ls -l@))
Years ago, I backed up my then-new Commodore Amiga with a commercial backup package,
which did the equivalent (in Mac terms) of quietly not backing up dot-underbar files. The result was that
I couldn't restore my system after a disk failure ... I wanted to be sure nothing like that was likely here :)
BTW, the few times I've used TM to restore a file I've had complete success.
I do, however, reallllly wish that I could have more than one designated TM drive, so I could rotate
them and not have to re-enable each one for TM backup when I reattach them.
Ok...bugreport.apple.com here I come.
>> /Users/sieler/docs/oz/baum_sigs/._1906publetter.jpg
>> /Users/sieler/docs/oz/baum_sigs/._1908fairylog.jpeg
>> /Users/sieler/docs/oz/baum_sigs/._1915oddsig.jpg
>> /Users/sieler/docs/oz/baum_sigs/._1918letter-detail.jpg
> I actually find it strange you can even see these. Normally, dot-underbar files aren't visible to the user; they're used to contain the metadata for files that reside on file systems that cannot express the various kinds of metadata HFS+ supports. This is a detail hidden from the user. *makes magic wavey-hands* I don't know why you'd see them, but it's probably benign that they aren't in your backup.
I'm using opendir() and readdir_r() to walk the directory. (BTW, thanks for providing readdir_r in addition to readdir.)
> Summary:
>
> What you (Stan) see here appears to be normal. (Except that I dunno why you see dot-underbar files.)
Great, thanks!
Stan
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Filesystem-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden