[PATCH] Re: samba_backup bug fix, error message enhancements, command line enhancement

Brian Martin samba-ml1 at martinconsulting.com
Fri Sep 27 15:45:22 MDT 2013

On 09/27/2013 01:38 PM, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> Thank you so much for doing this, this looks like a really useful
> improvement.
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org>
> Can I have a second reviewer from the team please?
> For the future, one useful change might be to change the ldb.bak files
> back into ldb files before or during archive creation, to make restore
> easier.  Having a test for this somehow would also be really neat.
> Thanks,
> Andrew Bartlett


You've pointed out an inconsistency I hadn't considered.  The ldb files 
are backed up with a .bak suffix, but all the other files just keep 
their regular names.  The advantage of the .bak suffix is that it help 
avoids the danger of accidentally writing over current production files 
the user wanted to keep, as in the case where they just wanted to look 
at last week's files but not actually run with them.  The disadvantage 
is that there are additional manual steps (renaming files) to complete 
the recovery if they were looking for an actual restore.  I'm not sure 
which way is the right way to go, but the script should do all the files 
the same way.  Either everything should get a .bak suffix added, or 
nothing should.

If you or the team want to tell me which way you think I should go, I'll 
code the patch.

 From the patch mechanics perspective, do I code this against the 
current base code, against the code containing my prior patches, or 
should I withdraw the prior patch and prepare a single new patch 
containing the prior patches and this too?

Thanks to you and the team for all the terrific work.  I have Samba4 
either in production or about to go into production in a domain at 
several sites.  It's going very well.

                    -Brian Martin

More information about the samba-technical mailing list