Support for --verify-data #210

New Issue

Closed

opened 2019-09-01 03:20:19 +00:00 by adatum · 7 comments

adatum commented 2019-09-01 03:20:19 +00:00

Copy Link

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)?

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`)?

witten commented 2019-09-01 03:27:12 +00:00

Owner

Copy Link

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 existing repository, archives or extract.

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 existing `repository`, `archives` or `extract`.

adatum commented 2019-09-01 18:39:43 +00:00

Author

Copy Link

Thanks! Since --verify-data seems to be an order of magnitude slower than check 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.

Thanks! Since `--verify-data` seems to be an order of magnitude slower than `check` 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.

witten commented 2019-09-01 21:07:53 +00:00

Owner

Copy Link

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?

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`?

adatum commented 2019-09-01 21:55:47 +00:00

Author

Copy Link

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 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.

witten referenced this issue from a commit 2019-09-18 23:54:09 +00:00

Support for Borg check --verify-data flag via borgmatic "data" consistency check (#210).

witten commented 2019-09-18 23:55:27 +00:00

Owner

Copy Link

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.

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.

👍 1

witten referenced this issue from a commit 2019-09-19 18:45:30 +00:00

Override configured consistency checks via "borgmatic check --only" command-line flag (#210).

witten commented 2019-09-19 18:47:58 +00:00

Owner

Copy Link

Okay, this is now implemented and released (in 1.3.16) via a new borgmatic check --only flag. For instance, you can use borgmatic check --only data. And it can be specified multiple times.

Let me know how it works out for you!

Okay, this is now implemented and released (in 1.3.16) via a new `borgmatic check --only` flag. For instance, you can use `borgmatic check --only data`. And it can be specified multiple times. Let me know how it works out for you!

witten closed this issue 2019-09-19 18:47:58 +00:00

witten commented 2019-09-19 22:16:03 +00:00

Owner

Copy Link

However, note this bug with extract checks: witten/borgmatic#217

However, note this bug with `extract` checks: https://projects.torsion.org/witten/borgmatic/issues/217

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Branch/Tag Specified

Branches Tags

main

spot-check

1.8.10

1.8.9

1.8.8

1.8.7

1.8.6

1.8.5

1.8.4

1.8.3

1.8.2

1.8.1

1.8.0

1.7.15

1.7.14

1.7.13

1.7.12

1.7.11

1.7.10

1.7.9

1.7.8

1.7.7

1.7.6

1.7.5

1.7.4

1.7.3

1.7.2

1.7.1

1.7.0

1.6.6

1.6.5

1.6.4

1.6.3

1.6.2

1.6.1

1.6.0

1.5.24

1.5.23

1.5.22

1.5.21

1.5.20

1.5.19

1.5.18

1.5.17

1.5.16

1.5.15

1.5.14

1.5.13

1.5.12

1.5.11

1.5.10

1.5.9

1.5.8

1.5.7

1.5.7.dev0

1.5.6

1.5.5

1.5.4

1.5.3

1.5.2

1.5.1

1.5.0

1.4.22

1.4.21

1.4.20

1.4.19

1.4.18

1.4.17

1.4.16

1.4.15

1.4.14

1.4.13

1.4.12

1.4.11

1.4.10

1.4.9

1.4.8

1.4.7

1.4.6

1.4.5

1.4.4

1.4.3

1.4.2

1.4.1

1.4.0

1.3.26

1.3.25

1.3.24

1.3.23

1.3.22

1.3.21

1.3.20

1.3.19

1.3.18

1.3.17

1.3.16

1.3.15

1.3.14

1.3.13

1.3.12

1.3.11

1.3.10

1.3.9

1.3.8

1.3.7

1.3.6

1.3.5

1.3.4

1.3.3

1.3.2

1.3.1

1.3.0

1.2.18

1.2.17

1.2.16

1.2.15

1.2.14

1.2.13

1.2.12

1.2.11

1.2.10

1.2.9

1.2.8

1.2.7

1.2.6

1.2.5

1.2.4

1.2.3

1.2.2

1.2.1

1.2.0

1.1.15

1.1.14

1.1.13

1.1.12

1.1.11

1.1.10

1.1.9

1.1.7

1.1.6

1.1.5

1.1.4

1.1.3

1.1.2

1.1.1

1.1.0

1.0.3

1.0.2

1.0.1

1.0.0

0.1.8

0.1.7

0.1.6

0.1.5

0.1.4

0.1.3

0.1.2

0.1.1

0.1.0

0.0.7

0.0.6

0.0.5

0.0.4

0.0.3

0.0.2

Labels

Clear labels   

bug

  

data loss

  

design finalized

  

good first issue

  

new feature area

  

question / support

  

security

  

waiting for response

No Label

bug

data loss

design finalized

good first issue

new feature area

question / support

security

waiting for response

Milestone

Clear milestone

No items

No Milestone

Assignees

Clear assignees

No Assignees

2 Participants

Notifications

Subscribe

Due Date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: borgmatic-collective/borgmatic#210

No description provided.