[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Pretty pictures and new version of proposal
From: |
John Goerzen |
Subject: |
Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Pretty pictures and new version of proposal |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:51:03 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4i |
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 12:25:56PM -0700, Ben Escoto wrote:
> Well, if something like gnupg is used, it already gives you the option
> of signing (as well as encrypting) input data, so this method could be
> used on all of the blocks. Similarly, I think gzip puts some CRC
> check by default into its output. So I think bits getting flipped
> will be noticed pretty early.
What if you're not using encoding at all? Also, it would be good to have a
post-decode checksum to ensure everything worked. Some formats may not be
able to detect if they have not decoded the entire original file, for
instance.
> However, the format is pretty fragile if a block becomes too long or
> too short. That would mess up all the lengths and could make the rest
> of the archive unreadable. However, other formats like tar don't seem
> to be robust in this way either, and maybe those kinds of errors don't
> happen very much (?).
tar actually is pretty resiliant in the face of this, and GNU tar can
recover from such a problem usually with only spoling the effected file and
perhaps those on either side of it.
-- John
- [rdiff-backup-users] Re: [Duplicity-talk] Pretty pictures and new version of proposal, (continued)