[Dirvish] dirvish: no incremental on Mac OS 10.4

Bernd Haug haug at berndhaug.net
Fri Oct 27 04:54:16 PDT 2006

Hash: SHA1

Dave Howorth wrote:
> 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.

I'm sorry if I come over like that; I just re-checked my replies and
frankly I don't see where I was aggressive. I'm not a native speaker
though, and if I'm doing something wrongly, please tell me off-list,
I like to improve.

In any case, sorry if anybody feels offended, it was certainly not
my intention.

> You're questioning the correctness of Keith and Paul here, but
> you've already stated that you don't know much about resource
> forks

Sorry to ask, but where did I say that?

> 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.

Actually, I said that I didn't care about the resource forks *being
backed up*.

I understand that they're important to the OS in a few respects, and
I know what they're used for. It's just that I see my Mac as
"mobile-friendly Unix", so basically all *my* needs don't use
resource forks.

> 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>

Thanks, that helped me *lots*;
not so much in itself, but it put me on the track to search about
Mac hardlink implementation.

Short version: It completely breaks POSIX semantics and generally sucks.

Read this if you really want to break your brain:

Taking the worse FS, and then emulating the better one badly on it,
is really embarrassing.

I haven't been looking in the general direction of Ubuntu that much
for /years/.

> 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.

My Linux box is quite full of VMs right now.

I will do the next best thing, though, for now: Make the external
disk UFS (which Mac OS supports natively), and see if that's enough
to fix it. If it isn't, I'll just have to see how many virtual boxes
I can move to archive... :(

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

THX for that info.

Yours, Bernd

Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the Dirvish mailing list