On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 01:26:32AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> however what Ivan was talking about is quite different, say you have
> two people, joe and steve, joe is leading some project, project bar,
> and steve is also working on it, so they have something like:
>
> /home/joe/project-bar (owned by joe)
> /home/joe/project-bar/fubar (owned by steve)
This same discussion came up some months ago on an SGI newsgroup.
I say now as I said then: this is an administration issue.
Crippling the backup program because someone might abuse it makes no
sense because that's not the most serious problem that can occur.
The admin does not have to use an option to do exclusion by flags.
In most other dump programs this is an option that must be turned on.
In years of doing Linux, DEC UNIX, Solaris, and BSD UNIX admin, I've
never had this be a problem before. They all allow directory exclusion,
and it works out just fine.
You have to be aware of things as an admin. You either back everything
up, or you honor flags and make sure the users understand what that means.
If you are not doing that, you have problems far greater than missing
files in your backups.
For many systems, especially those which lack large tape backup systems,
tree level exclusion is a necessity.
> i think ext2/3 only allow the file owner to set chattr flags like
> nodump, so for directories assuming xfs wanted to support this (in the
> ext2 manner) would need to invent a new system.something namespace just
> for this, that involves kernel bloat.
XFS is already huge kernel bloat, so a few more K isn't going to matter.
--
UNIX/Perl/C/Pizza__________________________________shannon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|