Re: Huge archive and last slice

On Wed, Dec 13 2023, Denis Corbin wrote:

> OK, I could make it. You can checkout the code from git on branch
> "no_last_slice". I have to test is further but it seems OK so far. I don't know
> yet where I will merge those changes, probably into branch 2.8.x not 2.7.x, but
> will keep it updated beside branch_2.7.x until then.
>
> This change leads dar to ask the first slice instead of the last slice only when
> an isolated catalog has been provided and the operation reads a backup in direct
> access mode (not in sequential read mode). In sequential read mode dar already
> fetch this info from the first slice, of course.

I have some questions here:

1) When dar_manager is in use, does it always request the first or the
last slice?  My vague memory was that it doesn't, but this may not have
been accurate.

2) If the needed data could be satisfied with either the first or the
last slice, could this be gated behind an option or something?  For
consistency, I have built workflow around assuming the last slice is
always needed.  I suppose I could always just not supply a catalog and
get that existing behavior.  But does this change how dar_manager
behaves?

3) Could the remaining missing information be added to the catalog so we
need neither the first nor the last slice when the catalog is supplied?

>
> So there is changes from user point of view. Let me know if someone has any
> object to this... I can still surface this as a new parameter for user to
> decide, but would like to avoid this extra work, if it is not necessary.
>
> Cheers,
> Denis
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> [[End of PGP Signed Part]]