(Sorry, I forgot again *slaps self resends to the list*)
William Nagel wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2005, at 12:10 PM, Mark Parker wrote:
>
>>
>> Dirk Schenkewitz wrote:
>>
>>> Are there any special advantages of "dump" compared to "hotcopy",
>>> other than
>>> the ability to make incremental dumps?
>>>
>>
>> The dump could (theoretically) be loaded by any future version of
>> Subversion. The hotcopy (theoretically) needs the correct machine
>> architecture, version of bdb (if it's a bdb repo) and version of
>> Subversion to work.
>>
>> Mark
I see. So for archiving, dump is better, because future versions of
svn should be able to read it and rebuild the repository in their new
"native" format, whatever it might be. Thank you!
> My backup process actually uses both. I use a hotcopy to create a
> backup of the entire repository to an onsite backup server, and use an
> incremental dump to send all of the changes made since the last backup
> to an offsite backup server.
Hmm, why incremental? That means you must keep all previous incremental
dumps. Why not full dumps every time and replace/overwrite the previous
ones? (Except you burn them on CD every time you have enough data.)
Thanks!
Dirk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jun 21 23:20:55 2005