Hopefully, it's not the only way your backup product determines if a file needs to be backed up. Based on what I'm saying here about the archive bit, that's not a bad thing. Tivoli TSM does not use the archive bit at all. NetBackup uses the archive bit for files and ctime for directories, but allows you to use mtime for files. NetWorker includes the archive bit as one of the things it checks to determine if a file needs to be backed up, but it also checks mtime and ctime, as well. When backing up Windows systems, different backup applications use the archive bit differently. edit: I'm aware of what it says on the rclone page, but I'm not a security expert myself my understanding is that rclone's crypt format isn't widely accepted or used by third-party tools. When backing up Unix systems, there is no archive bit, so backup applications use either mtime (when the contents of the file were last changed) or ctime (when the attributes of the file were last changed). If either has been changed, the file should be included in an incremental backup. So perhaps what they should be using is a combination of the archive bit and modification time. A backup software package that uses only modification time will not notice these files if they're older than the latest incremental backup. Proponents of the archive bit will point out that it is set on newly installed software, even if the files are old. This means that any user can defeat the purpose of the entire backup system. This is because they don't appear to be in need of backup, as the archive bit is not set. If he does that, ntbackup will clear the archive bit, and the corporate backup system in charge of backing up those files will not back them up. Suppose a user decides to use ntbackup to backup his files on the company's file server to CD. therefore we cant guarantee safety, availability, or download speeds. The first backup program to back up the directory will clear the archive bit, and the next program will not back up the same files. DNG allows photographers to archive their raw camera files in a single format for. The biggest problem with the archive bit, however, is that the process assumes that only one application will clear the archive bit, when there could actually be several of them. Therefore, the first problem with the archive bit is that it should be called the backup bit, because backups are not archives. There are so many options and so many nuances on backing up and syncing data. Cons: The software is a bit overwhelming initially. The versioning system has saved us thousands of dollars in lost productivity due to corrupted/lost files. Once this happens, the archive bit is cleared. The software can backup, do one and two way sync, and create versions (personal favorite). Here's why: If the "ready for archiving" bit is set on a file in Windows, it indicates that a file is new or changed, and that it should be backed up in an incremental backup. At the very least, backup product vendors should give us the option of not using it - without penalty. I have a major problem with the Windows archive bit, and so should you.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |