1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
|
Return-Path: <obnam-dev-bounces@obnam.org>
X-Original-To: distix@pieni.net
Delivered-To: distix@pieni.net
Received: from bagpuss.pepperfish.net (bagpuss.pepperfish.net [148.251.8.16])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pieni.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DB4C2730D
for <distix@pieni.net>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:39:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from platypus.pepperfish.net (unknown [10.112.100.20])
by bagpuss.pepperfish.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3030CE2;
Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:39:25 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ip6-localhost ([::1] helo=platypus.pepperfish.net)
by platypus.pepperfish.net with esmtp (Exim 4.80 #2 (Debian))
id 1cbTP3-0001xC-Hp; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 14:39:25 +0000
Received: from inmail0 ([10.112.100.10] helo=mx0.pepperfish.net)
by platypus.pepperfish.net with esmtp (Exim 4.80 #2 (Debian))
id 1cbTP2-0001wz-5L
for <obnam-dev@obnam.org>; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 14:39:24 +0000
Received: from suhail.uberspace.de ([185.26.156.24] ident=bHvES2bCVHe)
by mx0.pepperfish.net with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256)
(Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <jn@hz6.de>) id 1cbTP0-0004nL-6Y
for obnam-dev@obnam.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 14:39:24 +0000
Received: (qmail 18616 invoked by uid 651); 8 Feb 2017 14:39:14 -0000
Received: from p5DD71318.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (p5DD71318.dip0.t-ipconnect.de
[93.215.19.24]) by htjn.suhail.uberspace.de (Horde Framework) with HTTPS;
Wed, 08 Feb 2017 15:39:14 +0100
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 15:39:14 +0100
Message-ID: <20170208153914.Horde.8I6VxN_xeXtgEJeXW_MAMnm@htjn.suhail.uberspace.de>
From: Jan Niggemann <jn@hz6.de>
To: obnam-dev@obnam.org
References: <20170121144532.lxn3alp4he4nvrwy@exolobe3>
<87shnoapcg.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net>
In-Reply-To: <87shnoapcg.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net>
User-Agent: Horde Application Framework 5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Pepperfish-Transaction: ca83-94c0-d782-b97d
X-Spam-Score: -0.7
X-Spam-Score-int: -6
X-Spam-Bar: /
X-Scanned-By: pepperfish.net, Wed, 08 Feb 2017 14:39:24 +0000
X-Spam-Report: Content analysis details: (-0.7 points)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
-0.5 PPF_USER_AGENT User-Agent: exists
0.5 PPF_RECEIVED_HTTP Received header mentions http
0.2 PPF_REFERENCES_NODOTS References contains no dots after the @
-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
[score: 0.0000]
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no
trust [185.26.156.24 listed in list.dnswl.org]
1.0 URIBL_RED Contains an URL listed in the URIBL redlist
[URIs: codesourcery.com]
X-ACL-Warn: message may be spam
X-Scan-Signature: 909e24a621a695a51ad00ecc17e68015
Subject: Re: Obnam FORMAT GREEN ALBATROSS status and roadmap
X-BeenThere: obnam-dev@obnam.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Obnam development discussions <obnam-dev-obnam.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/obnam-dev-obnam.org>,
<mailto:obnam-dev-request@obnam.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/pipermail/obnam-dev-obnam.org>
List-Post: <mailto:obnam-dev@obnam.org>
List-Help: <mailto:obnam-dev-request@obnam.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/obnam-dev-obnam.org>,
<mailto:obnam-dev-request@obnam.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: obnam-dev-bounces@obnam.org
Errors-To: obnam-dev-bounces@obnam.org
Zitat von Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com>:
> Hi Lars!
>
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:45:32 +0200, Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> wrote:
>> I intend to get the new Obnam repository format, GREEN ALBATORSS,
>> finished this year.
>
> :-)
>
>
> One idea I just had -- but I don't know if that is feasible to implement:
> you could (internally!) have obnam "write" both the "current" and the
> "Green Albatross" formats, and then every "read" operation would read
> both of them, and compare that they return the same data. Then have
> obnam complain if that doesn't match (with the "current" format's data
> then taking precedence, I think). Obviously, that will add a lot of
> overhead for every repository access, but any users willing to take that
> can then easily help testing the "Green Albatross" format. But I don't
> know if the repository abstraction in obnam is sufficiently generic for
> being able to deal with two underlying repository formats, etc.
That's exactly what I started doing a couple of weeks ago - I backup
to a repo using the current stable format and then re-run the same
backup using GREEN ALBATROSS...
I don't take measurements though, I just wanted to know how the new
format "feels like"...
Jan
--
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x514FCA9C
F013 93C0 306C 1E31 4E00 09FA 21EC A2F6 514F CA9C
_______________________________________________
obnam-dev mailing list
obnam-dev@obnam.org
http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/obnam-dev-obnam.org
|
