| 1 |
On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:07:25 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> At least I wouldn't store everything in the same directory. It would |
| 4 |
> of course be a good idea to seperate things. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
<sigh> When did I ever mention using a single directory to mix up all |
| 7 |
backups? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
All I did was answer a question with an example of when different OSes |
| 10 |
may need to share a backup medium and you decided to get all evangelical |
| 11 |
about it. If you live and work in a heterogeneous environment, sometimes |
| 12 |
you have to find heterogeneous solutions. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> > A backup device is just a storage appliance, if should not be |
| 16 |
> > parochial about the origin of the data it stores. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> But because there are different requirements (features of the |
| 19 |
> filesystems), what you're saying is not correct. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Read back to what I first said. Because of the different requirements |
| 22 |
and features of filesystems, what /i first said is absolutely correct, |
| 23 |
that backup methods that rely on the underlying filesystem have their |
| 24 |
limitations. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> And why do you make such a fuss about such a natural thing? There's |
| 27 |
> just no reason in sharing such a device/filesystem/"storage endpoint" |
| 28 |
> between different operating systems. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Where did I state that a storage endpoint should be shared? Different |
| 31 |
archive formats in different directories do not constitute a shared |
| 32 |
endpoint. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Top Oxymorons Number 12: Plastic glasses |
Archives