[Box Backup] Impact of the bug #63 (hardlinks not supported)

[Dmitry Astapov]

I would also like to add that in my particular case filenames are always the
same (and dirnames obviously differ)

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Dmitry Astapov <dastapov at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm a new boxbackup user, and I have a massive ammount of warnings desribed
> in #63.
>
> Why do I have a lot of hardlinks? Because distributed version control
> systems like darcs or hg, and, to some extent, git use hardlinks when
> creating local branches of repositories to share history and patches between
> them. I have a lot of such development repositories - hence lots of
> warnings.
>
> Now, bug #63 says that this warning should not be ignored - data corruption
> is imminent. However, specifics of the corruption are not described. My
> guess is that only one copy of the hardlinked file is backed up, so when
> restoring I would end up with just a single copy of the fire in one of the
> places - am I right?
>
> Does this mean that boxbackup should be avoided when hardlinks are present
> or not?
>
> --
> Dmitry Astapov
>



-- 
Dmitry Astapov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.boxbackup.org/pipermail/boxbackup/attachments/20101213/ae6e4b5a/attachment.html>