[Box Backup] Available: a couple of EXPERIMENTAL BoxBackup patches.

[Nick Knight]

I would agree about being premature merging but I would like to fix the
problem on diffing large files. This is causing problems on most hosts
we do - mainly because they all have exchange - so we back that up then
get boxbackup to ship it off site, this is not working at the moment and
I really would like a fix.

Doing the merge won't take long, so I will finish it off, but the
management of only 3 versions will cause problems.

Perhaps we can have a chat about your plans, we all use it so are happy
to spread the workload/costs?

Question to Gary: why do you serialise and deserialise the regex data -
doesn't simply reloading the config file re-load this?

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: boxbackup-admin@fluffy.co.uk [mailto:boxbackup-admin@fluffy.co.uk]
On Behalf Of Ben Summers
Sent: 26 April 2005 13:48
To: boxbackup@fluffy.co.uk
Subject: Re: [Box Backup] Available: a couple of EXPERIMENTAL BoxBackup
patches.


I would like to include these features (although I'm not sure about the=20
one where the diffing time is turned off). However, I am planning to do=20
a fairly radical overhaul of the backup engine when I next get a chance=20
to do some work -- it's the only way to satisfy all the requests from=20
the list and fix a few issues while we're at it. Given that, maybe it's=20
premature to do this merge right now?

Also, Gary's sources contain the C++ thing I hate the absolute most,=20
overriding >> and << for I/O...

It is a bit silly having all these different sources, and we do need to=20
do something about it for the next release.

And of course, my thanks to Gary and Nick for their hard work!

Ben


On 26 Apr 2005, at 13:44, Nick Knight wrote:

> This is a question for Ben then, is this going to be included in the
> main source, at the mo there is yours, Gary's and mine, would be nice=20
> to
> get back to one at some point.
>
> For the mo I am merging in Gary's diffs as I know the problems he
fixes
> are high priority.
>
> Nick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boxbackup-admin@fluffy.co.uk=20
> [mailto:boxbackup-admin@fluffy.co.uk]
> On Behalf Of Gary
> Sent: 26 April 2005 12:10
> To: boxbackup@fluffy.co.uk
> Subject: RE: [Box Backup] Available: a couple of EXPERIMENTAL
BoxBackup
> patches.
>
> Nick,
>
>> I think you maybe right on this, I am assuming that the patches you
>> have created are only required on the client?
>
> Unfortunately, no, bbstored has to be patched/rebuilt as well, due to
a
> new GetIsAlive()/IsAlive() client-server command set (it wasn't that
> nice to keep requesting account usage info instead of a dedicated keep
> alive command). Other utilities like bbackupctrl have to be rebuilt as
> well, to allow for new bbstored.conf entries (error checking).
>
> Gary
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> boxbackup mailing list
> boxbackup@fluffy.co.uk
> http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> boxbackup mailing list
> boxbackup@fluffy.co.uk
> http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup
>

_______________________________________________
boxbackup mailing list
boxbackup@fluffy.co.uk
http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup