Holger Parplies wrote:
>>> The problem with doing a full every time is that on the client rsync has
>>> to read all the data to do the checksums - this is a non-trivial load
>>> for many systems.
>> Yes, it might not work everywhere, but machines that are normally idle
>> at night and manage once a week can probably do it every night.
>
> you did read the thread you are replying to, right? So you know we're
> talking about 1 TB of data, and that the first full run has been running for
> something like 80 hours and still is? That is not meant to imply that future
> full backups will take equally long, just that the initial question was "can
> I avoid future full backups?".
I think a couple of conversations were intertwined here, but I thought
we had at least established that avoiding full backups was a bad idea.
>> It might work to remove the "--ignore-times" from the full rsync command
>> and only put it back once in a while to verify your data.
>
> As pointed out, that either requires patching the source or building the
> $argList yourself. If you patch the source, it affects all hosts (unless you
> invent $Conf {HackRsyncFullWithoutIgnoreTimes}).
As a proof-of-concept test, I'd probably hack the Rsync.pm source and
put the original back once a week or so (with hosts set for daily
fulls). If the times and results look promising then it would be worth
coming up with a way to make it happen automatically.
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
