Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

optionally use the full subvolume path as default snapshot_name #304

Open
fallenguru opened this issue Nov 14, 2019 · 3 comments
Open

optionally use the full subvolume path as default snapshot_name #304

fallenguru opened this issue Nov 14, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

@fallenguru
Copy link

Currently btrbk uses only the subvolume (base)name as a prefix for naming snapshots & backups. The information where a subvolume comes from/goes in the larger fs structure is lost.
This might be a problem in naming schemes where the actual subvolume has rather generic names, it's definitely a problem when you have two subvolumes of the same name, e.g. $REALROOT/@home/user1/Documents, $REALROOT/@home/user2/Documents, and so on.

It's possible to set snapshot_name for each affected subvolume, of course, but that's quite fiddly and, considering it has to be set on both ends in a split snapshot-only/pull-only setup, error prone.

How about a config file switch that changes the default snapshot_name to a sensibly escaped version of subvolume-name, the path given in the subvolume section? Something like @home-user1-Documents in the above case?

@digint
Copy link
Owner

digint commented Nov 16, 2019

Sounds useful. Something like snapshot_name_prefix_fullpath [yes|no], or even snapshot_name_prefix_path_from /my/root/path/.

Adding "enhancement" label on this (don't expect it too soon, I'm pretty busy at the moment...)

@fallenguru
Copy link
Author

Oh, I'm not expecting anything! I'm happy as a clam there's a well-tested backup solution that fits my current use-case, so I don't have to roll my own. :-)

LubosKolouch added a commit to LubosKolouch/btrbk that referenced this issue Oct 3, 2020
@LubosKolouch
Copy link

Implementation proposal in #342

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants