Signature, Verify, Accurate and -> XXH128

[John Lockard]

Correct me if I'm wrong...

In Director -> Fileset -> Options, I choose my Signature, and according to the docs XXH128 seems to be the recommended signature.

Then, in Verity and Accurate I choose which values matter to me for making an accurate backup, i.e. which file changes matter to me.  Looking through the list of possible options, I see there are options for verifying MD5 and SHA1 signatures (5 and 1 respectively), but I don't see options for SHA256, SHA512, and especially the recommended signature, XXH128.  I haven't dived into the source, yet, to see if I can figure it out for myself, but if someone can quickly tell me what the Verify/Accurate option for comparing an XXH128 signature, that would be fantastic.

Also, the docs should be updated to reflect the correct information.

Thanks,

-John

--

- Adaptability -- Analytical --- Ideation ---- Input ----- Belief - 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
         John M. Lockard |  U of Michigan - School of Information
          Unix Sys Admin |      Suite 205 | 309 Maynard Street
      jloc...@umich.edu |        Ann Arbor, MI  48104-2211
 www.umich.edu/~jlockard |     734-615-8776 | 734-763-9677 FAX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
- The University of Michigan will never ask you for your password -

[John Lockard]

Okay, I've looked into the code and see that there is, indeed, no options available for Accurate or Verify to incorporate anything other than SHA1 (1) or MD5 (5) as relates to signature.  Even though SHA256 and SHA512 have been in the code for maybe close to a decade those have never been added for signature comparison for Accurate backups.  I'm surprised that XXH128 is the recommended Signature yet wasn't added for Accurate backups.  Now I need to ponder whether this is a patch I'm interested in making...

-John

[Bruno Friedmann (bruno-at-bareos)]

Like any other open source software, I would say that if you find something missing for your usage, you're free to adapt, patch and of course, make whatever you can to push it upstream so it benefit to all.

So in your case, please open an issue on github, then make a PR with patch to current code. Also extend the systemtest so this is tested. 

The systemtest can be the first thing to develop to demonstrate the problem and then that the code changes rssolve it.

Have fun.

[John Lockard]

I'll guess this is pretty much the same answer as the suggestion to add "Include Dir Containing" to the Fileset Exclude options to match "Exclude Dir Containing" which is in the Fileset Include Options.  With my researchers, if I put it on them to tag directories they don't want backed up, they will take no initiative and I'll be backing up their data, whether they really need it backed up or not.  If I only backup data they tag to be backed up, then they have a reason to actively be involved in their data retention.

-John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bareos-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bareos-users...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bareos-users/5d401156-ce8c-4307-aa58-0655b2d111a2n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Friedmann (bruno-at-bareos)]

I'm not sure to understand your last comment and how it is related to the topic ?

[John Lockard]

It was basically asking for a confirmation asking that if I also wanted a feature to add "Include Dir Containing" to match the "Exclude Dir Containing", it would be on me to develop the code and submit it for inclusion.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bareos-users/f80d66df-20c6-4a79-ae57-b3bc2eb43a7dn%40googlegroups.com.