Re: MAYBE BUG in dar 2.7.2 with hardlinks handling

On 08/12/2021 17:38, Alexey Loukianov via Dar-support wrote:
> On 08.12.2021 15:51, Denis Corbin wrote:
>> But things are not implemented that way...
>> ... (lines snipped) ...

[...]

>> I'm pretty sure you have good reasons to use rsync + dar that way, but a
>> more simple approach would be to use dar only.
>> ... (lines snipped) ...
> 
> Of course there's a reason: people from the company management want to
> hove the ability to easily read-only access "directory contents
> snapshot" with 1 day granularity over the network from boxes running
> Windows for at least past two months. So it has to be CIFS share and no
> matter the backup tooling used I have to store all these per-day
> directories laying on a disk next to each other to satisfy the reqs.
> Cross hard-linking daily snapshots using rsync was a natural choice back
> in the day to save space. Nowadays there are some alternatives like VDOs
> or other deduplication solutions that work "under the hood" at
> filesystem level but it wasn't easily available back in - say - 2010.

I see.

> 
> Doubling down with DAR + a backup strategy on top of the above
> requirement was just an obvious next thing to do when company grew to a
> point to start thinking about resilience and emergency recovery from on-
> and off-site backups. Drop the requirement and I would definitely move
> to using dar-only based backup solution just to simplify and speed
> things up.
> 
> Nevertheless thanks again for an interesting discussion and for your
> time spent with me on this topic.

Thanks to you too, for sharing this use case and the investigation you did.

Cheers,
Denis