DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=cBiRPFVosjPMYIT3
	XERsp6BL27FTUJF60FN5l+vM5ejiXyrQkDEEO24/7pC1+epgR9ySjxeVHF+4r0mK
	K2BcGlaEiE642LKIYpO/tCs7Gniej3wSNe9jHvFbHdhV+o2h3QsN37NTIyzSlvFA
	KH+DdCYsEWw4KBzD3ztnBhAiP6g=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_tar_incremental_backups_and_ctime=e2=80=8f_problem?=
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <CAOKAGPP0o6vV2KTpfs4M0DyqwHA3pVw-+xkwLmjyWpAFthbA+A@mail.gmail.com> <9fdf98cf-e3d1-e453-1c98-2c206afe81c9@gmail.com> <CAOKAGPOzSYkmFRJazgQMwjUCKsKaBbE9gcVAdNnNvYUkmc=9Bw@mail.gmail.com> <09f604cd-61df-e0c7-b313-1dcf1ef59b4e@gmail.com> <CAOKAGPMHEiNLW3makusvvx2E7V9etjA+YPUMDh56=N42wmtLYA@mail.gmail.com> <574313B3.3090703@redhat.com> <CAOKAGPOVnU1Lr2od-UbtRAeZHFKjnNC2jOmmGouVotSYMxbokw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marco Atzeri <marco.atzeri@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b2009993-f09a-c07f-f524-34266334c151@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 17:35:20 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOKAGPOVnU1Lr2od-UbtRAeZHFKjnNC2jOmmGouVotSYMxbokw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 23/05/2016 16:57, x y wrote:
>> mtime is fakeable, ctime is not.  Using only mtime makes it likely that
>> your incremental backup will miss files.  I don't have any good reason
>> to differ from upstream behavior here.
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> The problem is not faking time stamps. Even commercial Windows backup
> programs are checking the modification time to identify the modified
> files.
>
> Consider that you have a lot of files opened and closed without any
> modification in your company. Because of the priority of the ctime
> time stamp, reintroducing all of those files to the incremental backup
> does not make any sense. tar has also the capacity to create
> differential backups with the condition of taking care of the snapshot
> file. The ctime issue can result in unnecessarily big differential
> backups filled with unmodified files.
>
> Cygwin tar can be a good  alternative for Windows users to do
> differential \ incremental backups but the ctime problem must be
> solved.
>

It is always possible to create file list with find and use that
to tar whatever using --files-from=FILE option

I don't see the need to change tar behaviour to meet your wish.

Regards
Marco


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple