| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=LALkTMO3UagaY5p6o_Uqu3mmzpw@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 18:54:01 -0700 From: coderman <coderman@...il.com> To: Andrew Farmer <andfarm@...il.com> Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: File system recursion and symlinks: A never-ending story (and how to bring it to an end for me) On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:16 PM, coderman <coderman@...il.com> wrote: > ... > there are also [lots of concerns and caveats with using volume snapshots ...] someone asked, "then why use snapshots for backups if difficult?" a backup is represented as a collection of data at a specific point in time. your backup software will traverse the entire collection to perform a complete or incremental archive of this collection. you probably reference it by date, like 05/30/2011-18:50:30. if it takes 45 minutes to traverse a filesystem for backup, what you expect to be backup 05/30/2011-18:50:30 is really a set spanning 05/30/2011-18:50:30 to 05/30/2011-19:20:00 with potentially large amounts of change spanning that time frame and no clue what they were. with a snapshot of a volume at 05/30/2011-18:50:30, you know the backup process performed on that snapshot is truly a backup of the data as of 05/30/2011-18:50:30 no matter how long it takes to iterate over / analyze the files within it. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists