Re: dealing with timestamp (in-)accuracy

Lasse Kliemann wrote:
>> 
>> Did you actually see missing files in incrementals?
> 
> Yes. Please try the attached script. It will report FAIL with, I guess, 95% 
> probability, meaning that the file called `1' is not included in the level 
> one dump. When you insert a sleep statement at the place marked HERE, the 
> error probability decreases. With 1 second of sleep, I could not provoke an 
> error. With 0.9 seconds, it still might happen.
> 
> It does not help to put sleep or sync statements between the touch statement 
> and the dump.

I thought the problem with direct dump-like access to a live filesystem 
   had been known for ages: 
http://dump.sourceforge.net/isdumpdeprecated.html

By the way - does anyone know how zfs and it's incremenatal send/receive 
compare?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    [email protected]