Well my only thought is a reference to the old way of engineering, to first decide what you want, and then use the tools that best suits your needs to achieve it.<br><br>Since I believe the "Time-Machine" use case to be one of the two reasons why snapshotting in LVM were implemented, to me it seems like the best suited tool.
<br><br>"Do the right thing, and do the thing right." It seems to me like a time-machine is the right thing to do, and LVM is the right way to achieve it, but I could be wrong. :)<br><br>Respectfully<br>/ Ulrik<br>
<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 11/15/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Sivan Greenberg</b> <<a href="mailto:sivan@ubuntu.com">sivan@ubuntu.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Ulrik Mikaelsson wrote:<br>> Don't know if I've totally missed something, but for local backups,<br>> isn't it possible to use the snapshotting feature of LVM? Should be<br>> quite fast, I think?<br><br>I believe that the complexity of a back end essentially dictates how
<br>complex it's UI as a fron end, as we are aiming for something simple and<br>usable by even newest people to Ubuntu. I can't see mandating LVM<br>installation could align with that actually. However, if we had LVM by<br>
default like in recent fedora and red hat we could probably use this to<br>achieve the "Time Machine" functionality by wrapping it up in a nice<br>similar UI.<br><br>More thoughts ?<br><br>Sivan<br></blockquote>
</div><br>