[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Duplicity-talk] Non-integer mtime
From: |
Kenneth Loafman |
Subject: |
Re: [Duplicity-talk] Non-integer mtime |
Date: |
Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:12:48 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (X11/20070824) |
Soren Hansen wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm trying out duplicity and it seems that duplicity stores its
> timestamps as ints, but I use XFS which has nanosecond resolution. I
> believe utimes(2) only allows us to see microsecond resolution, but this
> still means that there's about a 1:1000 chance that duplicity will think
> that a given file has not had its timestamp updated. :)
>
> The easy fix would of course be to cast the st_mtime from that stat call
> to an int, but it seems more correct to actually store the full
> timestamp.
>
> Thoughts?
This may have to be marked as a bug if it becomes important to track.
I'm not sure how you would miss an update unless:
1) the update on that file happened as the file was backed up,
2) the update happened within one second, and
3) the file was not updated after that.
Kind of a small, very unlikely, scenario.
...Ken
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- [Duplicity-talk] Non-integer mtime, Soren Hansen, 2007/10/10
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Non-integer mtime,
Kenneth Loafman <=
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Non-integer mtime, Soren Hansen, 2007/10/11
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Non-integer mtime, Kenneth Loafman, 2007/10/11
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Non-integer mtime, Soren Hansen, 2007/10/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Non-integer mtime, Kenneth Loafman, 2007/10/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Non-integer mtime, Peter Schuller, 2007/10/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Non-integer mtime, Soren Hansen, 2007/10/12
Re: [Duplicity-talk] Non-integer mtime, Peter Schuller, 2007/10/12