Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: Can one safely run multiple instances to thesame target?

[Peter Schuller]

> There would definitely need to be a way to recover from an orphaned 
> lockfile.  Additionally, if you are considering adding semaphore ability 
> within duplicity itself, it might be an interesting thought to consider 
> adding in a --verify-after-backup option to verify within the same duplicity 
> execution.  ie: you would not want another instance of duplicity to be able 
> to grab the lock prior to being able to do a verify after the backup is 
> complete.

--verify-after-backup is a good idea IMO.

As for recovery - while it would be nice, the problem with advisory
locking is that the policy with regards to any kind of
recovery/fallback is going to be very dependent on situation.

In the case of a portable mkdir lock, what would be your suggestion?

For me personally, I would want to manually intervene if a backup is
unexpectedly taking longer than the backup frequency. And if this
never happens under normal circumstances, it is difficult to judge
what an appropriate timeout might be.

Trying to accurately determine whether duplicity is already running is
not really an option, since the lack of a good solution for that was
the reason for the simply lock to begin with.

Any suggestions?

-- 
/ Peter Schuller

PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <address@hidden>'
Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to address@hidden
E-Mail: address@hidden Web: http://www.scode.org

pgpUeT95VQYlo.pgp
Description: PGP signature