> On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 01:38:18PM +0200, Toralf Lund wrote: > > Forgot to mention this earlier: I'm not using incrementals at all. > Tapes > > from the same week will contain full backups of different directories, > and > > a given file is backed up (only) once a week. > > OK, I'll bite... How hard did you have to twist amanda's arm to convince > her to do that?
dumpcycle 1 week .... skip-incr Not a lot harder than that. Well, maybe there is no guarantee against getting the same file backed up twice if there's room for it on a tape after everything has been backed up once, but I don't care about that. And there isn't a lot if it (additional tape space when everything has been backed up.) Which is also why incrementals are fairly meaningless. > > And you do realize that incrementals tend to be a good deal smaller than > fulls, yes? Like I said, we work with LARGE files... > I'd be willing to bet that you'd be better off letting > amanda > figure out for herself what to back up, when, and at what level instead > of trying to force this 'one full per dump cycle and no incrementals' > policy on her. > > I'm getting the impression that not only have you decided to do things > in a way that amanda really isn't designed to handle, but that you'd be > able to accomplish it much more easily by just using cron, dump, and > gzip. No. With dump, and also many "high level" backup applications, I would have to split the data into backup sets or whatever you call it, based on what will fit on a tape, which is a significant amount of work.
