need help with an rsync patch

Kevin Korb kmk at
Tue Aug 27 16:44:00 MDT 2013

Hash: SHA1

My opinion on backups is pretty simplistic.  If a restore of my backup
doesn't bring me back to what I had when I backed up then I don't have
a backup.

If I have to restore something and the relationship between files that
were hard linked in the past is lost that might not be something that
I even notice immediately.  Maybe not until the file is changed and
now there are 2 versions of it in different places since the
relationship is gone.

Either way, not backing up the hard link relationships duplicates data
on both the backup and on any potential restore.

But even more importantly, the original question was about excluding
all files with linkcount>1 from backups.  That means that any file
important enough to have in more than one place would in fact never be
backed up at all.  That is crazy.

On 08/27/13 18:37, Henri Shustak wrote:
>> The solution is not to refuse to backup any file that is a hard
>> link. There are legitimate reasons to have hard links and
>> ignoring them means you aren't backing up everything.
> I agree that preserving hard links may be important in some
> situation. There are certainly legitimate reasons to preserve hard
> links within a backup.
> To more than a couple of years I have been weighing up the
> advantages and disadvantages relating to including a hard link
> preservation support within LBackup. The latest alpha build of
> LBackup now includes support for hard link preservation.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is protected by LBackup, an open source backup solution

- -- 
	Kevin Korb			Phone:    (407) 252-6853
	Systems Administrator		Internet:
	FutureQuest, Inc.		Kevin at  (work)
	Orlando, Florida		kmk at (personal)
	Web page:
	PGP public key available on web site.
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -


More information about the rsync mailing list