[chandler-users] backup.chex - a broader understanding/context

Graham Perrin G.J.Perrin at bton.ac.uk
Tue Jan 6 02:49:00 PST 2009



Graham Perrin wrote:
> 
> ================================
> 2) backup.chex
> ================================
> 
> Q2: What's comprised within a Chandler .chex file?
> 
> For me, this file is currently 80 KB.
> 

…


Andi Vajda wrote:
> 
> … a repository backup is different from .chex files in that your entire
> repository databases are backed up, not just the latest version of a
> subset of your Chandler items. A .chex backup trades completeness for a
> much smaller size and the ability to migrate your data to a new Chandler
> schema. …
> 

In chandler-dev , 


Grant Baillie wrote:
> 
> The backup.chex file in your profile dir, is forward compatible, and
> that's what's used to migrate your data across upgrades.
> 

Thank you both. Three further questions:

Q: In a nutshell, in what way is backup.chex less complete?

Q: Is backup.chex alone sufficient for an automated upgrade routine? 
Or does the routine read from (a) the .chex plus (b) the old repository 
to produce (c) an upgraded repository?

On 4th January: my backup.chex was a tiny 80 KB alongside a ~300 MB
repository. 

Q: Is backup.chex naturally so small at certain times? Is it, maybe, reduced
in size (redundant) whilst Chandler.app is running?

(Side note: today, with Chandler not running, my backup.chex is 8.5 MB
alongside a 313.2 MB repository, and I'm reading this topic alongside
<https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12508>,
<https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12509> and
<http://n2.nabble.com/-tp2109519p2114449.html>.)

TIA
Graham
-- 
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Understanding-and-housekeeping-weeding-%281%29-binary_backup.tgz-%282%29-backup.chex-%283%29-date-time-stamped-.chex-files-%284%29-__repository__.*-directories-tp2109816p2117001.html
Sent from the Chandler users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



More information about the chandler-users mailing list