Support for --verify-data #210
Labels
No Label
bug
data loss
design finalized
good first issue
new feature area
question / support
security
waiting for response
No Milestone
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: borgmatic-collective/borgmatic#210
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Would you consider adding support for
borg check
's--verify-data
option, as a config file option (eg. in the consistency section) and/or command line option (eg.borgmatic check --verify-data
)?Sure! Sounds like it's even slower than a normal archive check, but sometimes that may be exactly the sort of validation you need. Given that it's similar in spirit to the existing Borg consistency checks, I would probably support specifying this within the configuration's
checks
option, just like with the existingrepository
,archives
orextract
.Thanks! Since
--verify-data
seems to be an order of magnitude slower thancheck
without it, right now I don't think I will schedule it but rather run it manually on occasion. So, a command line option would be great for that. Though if it's too much trouble to implement, I understand.Not so much trouble as it opens up a bunch of questions about the other consistency checks: Should there be a corresponding
--check-archives
command-line option? What about--check-repository
?--check-extract
?I certainly won't complain about more options. The main use-case in my mind for command line options for check is to manually invoke tasks that take a long time to run, and therefore might not be scheduled to run automatically.
--verify-data
and possibly--check-extract
seem to fall in that category.I implemented the new "data" consistency check in master. Next, I'll look into adding something to the borgmatic command-line to suit your use case.
Okay, this is now implemented and released (in 1.3.16) via a new
borgmatic check --only
flag. For instance, you can useborgmatic check --only data
. And it can be specified multiple times.Let me know how it works out for you!
However, note this bug with
extract
checks: witten/borgmatic#217