Jack wrote:
> I ues a backup system before that had a "incremental forever" backup policy.
> The first "incremental" was really a full, and after that, like BackupPC
> with rsync, it scanned for changes, and only backedup what it needed to.
> Unless you forced it, you never did (or needed to) do a full backup again.
> Thi other backup system uses a database to keep its information like MD5 and
> permissions, etc, information to know if the file really did change.
>
> Logically that is what it seems like backuppc is doing. But it really does
> do an effective full and incremental like other backup techniques, as I
> understand.
>
> Could someone straighten me out as to what is different here?
The tar and smb methods transfer everything on fulls and use timestamps
to determine what to transfer on incrementals. These will eventually
get out of sync because it doesn't track deletions or old files that are
renamed, under renamed directories, or copied with methods that
preserver old timestamps (tar might catch some of those but smb won't).
The rsync and rsyncd methods always compare to the previous full run and
only transfer the changes. The difference between full and incrementals
here is that fulls add the --ignore-timestamp option to force a
block-checksum comparison of all files and will rebuild the backup tree
on the server.
In all cases, the transferred files are merged into the backup pool to
eliminate duplication.
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[email protected]
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
