Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Robustness to errors during backup

[Charles Duffy]

Frederik wrote:
> Yes, it's normal that it fails in these cases. But it's not normal
> that it is not able to recover from it without removing all
> increments. For example, in case of corruption, it should ignore all
> corrupted files, but it should not completely prevent creating new
> backups or prevent restoring correct backups. Now it seems all
> rdiff-backup operations are completely blocked until you manually
> remove all increments, even of files which are not corrupted. This is
> unacceptable for me. I had never such experiences with Bacula.
And I've never had such experiences with rdiff-backup -- and I have a 
very large number of servers using it on a nightly basis, and my backup 
server has run out of space (or had filesystem corruption) more than 
once. Are you sure that you're using it correctly?

Does --check-destination-dir remove increments on you, or do you get 
some kind of error even after using --check-destination-dir?