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

Feature/fix path storage2 #3468

Merged
merged 10 commits into from Jan 26, 2019

Conversation

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@wolfganggg
Copy link

commented Nov 4, 2018

Fixes #

kenkendk added some commits Jun 14, 2018

Merge branch 'master' into feature/fix_path_storage2
# Conflicts:
#	Duplicati/Library/Main/Database/LocalBackupDatabase.cs
Merge branch 'master' into feature/fix_path_storage2
# Conflicts:
#	Duplicati/Library/Main/Database/LocalBackupDatabase.cs
#	Duplicati/Library/Main/Operation/Backup/BackupDatabase.cs
#	Duplicati/Library/Main/Operation/Backup/MetadataPreProcess.cs
Merge branch 'master' into feature/fix_path_storage2
# Conflicts:
#	Duplicati/Library/Main/Database/LocalRecreateDatabase.cs
@kenkendk

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Nov 6, 2018

I am waiting a bit to inject this into the master branch so we can squeeze out a new beta before applying this, as it makes it difficult to go back.

Do you see significant space savings when using this?

@Pectojin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Dec 10, 2018

@kenkendk can we merge this now that the beta is out?

@kenkendk

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Dec 11, 2018

@kenkendk can we merge this now that the beta is out?

Yes. It would be a pain to roll back though. Is it tested enough that we want to merge it?

Rune Henriksen
@Pectojin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jan 25, 2019

I'm gonna merge this after the tests finish. Just for the sake of completeness, what's the id of the issue this fixes so we can close it?

@warwickmm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jan 26, 2019

If it helps, I ran a variety of tests on this branch and didn't detect any issues. I also have a backup configuration (~30,000 files, 3.6 GB source) and the resulting size of the local database after the initial backup was 20,791,296 bytes. When running the same configuration using the current master (c1b0611), the size of the local database after the initial backup was 27,131,904 bytes.

@Pectojin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jan 26, 2019

I also had a positive experience in my tests. My backups were too small to detect much of a space saving. Inspecting the database everything also looked good, so I'm comfortable with this change.

I also think it will potentially allow us to do some cool stuff with restore since we can find the directory first before looking at the actual files.

@Pectojin Pectojin merged commit c53d438 into master Jan 26, 2019

4 of 5 checks passed

Codacy/PR Quality Review Not up to standards. This pull request quality could be better.
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/branch AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/push The Travis CI build passed
Details
@warwickmm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jan 26, 2019

I suspect that this addresses issue #1283?

@duplicatibot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 30, 2019

This pull request has been mentioned on Duplicati. There might be relevant details there:

https://forum.duplicati.com/t/direct-restore-lost-database-will-it-re-download-all-this/7411/15

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.