On 09/24 12:38 , Craig Barratt wrote: > > My understanding of how BackupPC works in this regard is imperfect. Why > > can't the old partial backup be updated, in the way that conventional rsync > > updates an old copy? > > BackupPC doesn't do anything in place on the server. It always > creates a new directory tree for each backup. In contrast, with > typical usage rsync does things in place.
ah, I see. I think I see some of the arguments for doing things this way, but what was *your* reasoning when you first designed this architecture? It's rather unusual compared to the other rsync-backup programs I've seen (or built). > In 3.1.0 I've added a check that a new partial won't replace an > old partial unless it contains more files, so that should avoid > the annoying problem of a new partial potentially being smaller > than the last. Much appreciated. Thanks. :) Ideally, the new partial would be merged with the old partial tho. I guess we'll have to wait for a newer version for that feature. (alternatively, how much would it cost for someone to pay you to add that feature?) > The issue is that the proposed new style of storage would be most > efficient with in-place updating of the last (complete) backup. ah, so you're planning on abandoning the creation of a 'new' tree with every backup, and going to in-place updating, which means we get normal rsync behavior. (Thus obviating my comment above). I appreciate your exposition. :) -- Carl Soderstrom Systems Administrator Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
