duplicity-team team mailing list archive

[Kenneth Loafman <kenneth@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

edgar.soldin@xxxxxx wrote:
> 
>> Not sure that keeping the sig files is the way to go as a default
>> option, and we'd run into the same problems as --archive-dir if we make
>> it optional.
> 
> currently keeping sig files is no option, or? So it's a whole different
> scenario, isn't it?

Not really all that, but the root problem with options like this is that
we don't store them in a configuration file for reuse.  If we did, then
a lot of problems would be solved.

>> The first run without the option and the previous sigs
>> would just disappear.  Sure to generate lots of complaints.
> 
> what's the downside on keeping the small sig files for each chain?

For one, they aren't that small, and some folks pay a bunch for offsite,
so want as little overhead as possible.  It's all a tradeoff.

One thing to think of is allowing the signatures to cover a larger
block.  Right now, the blocksize that a sig covers is fairly small,
matching what rdiff does, but we could make that tuneable.  If you make
the coverage larger, you get fewer sigs per file and smaller sigtar
files, but larger blocks are backed up.  The opposite produces larger
sigtar files.  For now, its a good mix, but it would be better if you
could tune it with knowledge of your backup needs.

...Ken