[Dirvish] dirvish: no incremental on Mac OS 10.4

Dave Howorth dhoworth at mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk
Fri Oct 27 02:30:18 PDT 2006


Bernd Haug wrote:
> Paul Slootman wrote:
>> On Wed 25 Oct 2006, Bernd Haug wrote:
>>> What kind of associations do you mean? Date and contents stay the
>>> same; and inode isn't the same (or rather, may or may not be the
>>> same) on any Unix.
>> Again, the resource forks...
> 
> Well, if dirvish does not use ressource forks, why should it notice
> them?

Hi Bernd

Pardon me for interjecting, but you're asking for help and people are
trying to help but many of your responses to their comments strike me at
least as pretty negative.

You're questioning the correctness of Keith and Paul here, but you've
already stated that you don't know much about resource forks and just
below you say you don't care. Keith and Paul obviously do think they're
important. In that circumstance, I'd suggest you'd be well advised to do
some research on the subject before questioning people.

Now I don't know anything about Macs or their filesystems, so when I saw
their comments, I went googling and I found some hints that perhaps you
should care about the resource forks and metadata. For example, there's
a statement here that they are vital to hardlink implementation:

<http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2002-June/014016.html>

So if I wanted to make Mac backup work I'd be deeply interested in
filesystem details, rsync versions etc. As a first step, I think I'd try
to back up the Mac to a Linux box with a Linux filesystem. Get that to
work properly. Then maybe to a Linux filesystem on a Mac. Finally to a
native Mac filesystem.

BTW, dirvish is 'just' a wrapper round rsync, so yes, rsync is used for
local transport.

HTH, Dave


More information about the Dirvish mailing list