In article <6f2msmF9hsmtU1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Ridd <chrisridd@mac.com> wrote:
> gmark wrote: > > Wow, now that you mention it, if that's true, then no backup snapshot > > would be > > a true "snapshot", but rather a collection of files with a close range > > of timestamps > > I can't see how you could do anything else, TBH.
I believe Retrospect handles this by first calculating checksums for all files in the backup. Retrospect makes note of any files that have changed in the error log during the actual backup.
> > distributed over the time it took to make that backup. So a faster > > interface would > > result in a smaller range of file sample times. > > Right, but it will still always be a "blur" of what's on your filesystem > unless you've got an infinitely fast interface :-)
There's really no easy way to get around this.
-- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
