[Box Backup] I have the fear....
Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:40:39 +0000 (GMT)
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Ben Summers wrote:
> If we included hashes of file contents, it'd sort it.
> But then you'd
> have to calculate hashes for everything when you scan.
Doesn't seem like a massive overhead, especially if we cache the hashes of
large files (over threshold) and we can recalculate the hashes of small
files on the fly.
> We don't check file sizes though. That would make it less likely to miss
> things, at the cost of included them encrypted in the directories.
That would be a nice feature, but wouldn't catch every case. For example,
in the test case I just wrote, both files deliberately have the same size.
> So really there's no real way of catching this case without a massive
> amount of book keeping and inflating the structures.
I don't agree, I think that encrypted file sizes would be easy and result
in a minimal overhead, and partially-cached file hashes would probably be
ok too, especially as users can set the threshold for caching them.
> How about
> 4. Wait until the next version when we intend to use filesystem change
> notifications instead of scanning, where available.
I agree with you and Martin that this is worthwhile, however I think it's
worth adding support for the other options given that not all platforms
support change notifications (does BSD or MacOS X?)
> For now, document this edge case.
> Changing anything now seems an awful lot of extra work to work around
> non-optimal (or dangerous?) behaviour in an obscure Linux distribution
> with dubious project goals.
Sorry, I don't agree with this, I happen to like Gentoo a lot and have a
lot of respect for them, especially the technical support which seems to
be lightyears ahead of mainstream Linux distributions like Ubuntu.
_____ __ _
\ __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK |
/ (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer |
\ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software |