On Tuesday 21 August 2007, you wrote: > Frans Pop wrote: > >> If this is really the way backuppc does incremental backups, I think > >> backuppc should be a bit more incremental with its incremental > >> backups. Instead of comparing against the last full, it should compare > >> against the last full and incremental backups. This would solve this > >> problem and make backuppc more efficient anyway, AFAIK. > > > > That proposal goes completely against the basic principles of > > incremental backups!
> What principles, and how do they apply to a system where all copies of > everything are pooled? Guess I was confused with differential backups. Anyway, the way incremental backups as described in the BackupPC documentation (for 2.x) make it clear that BackupPC's incremental backups are really differential backups. This page has a nice description of the different methods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incremental_backup > > If you want something like that, you should use multiple levels of > > incremental backups. > > I thought that was an option in 3.0 but I haven't used it yet. If your > targets aren't doing anything else at night you can just do rsync fulls > every time and waste a few cpu cycles. Yes, in 3.0 "Multilevel incremental" as defined in that wikipedia page should be supported. I've not yet used it myself either. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
