Daniel Carrera wrote:
>
>> the reference backup
>> for an incremental rsync backup is the *previous backup of lower level* of
>> the
>> host. Level 1 incrementals will re-transmit any changed files until the next
>> full backup (because they are relative to the previous full, not to each
>> other).
>
> That seems wasteful. Why is it like that?
The original version only had the timestamp-based tar and smb methods
and work like more traditional backups. The rsync-in-perl code was
added later and stayed mostly compatible until the option for
incremental level settings was added in recent versions.
>> The next full will not re-transmit these files (unless they have
>> changed once again).
>
> So it's possible that a full backup runs faster than an incremental
> because it doesn't have to transmit everything again?
The full itself would take as long - but the one following the full
which becomes the next reference copy could be much faster than another
incremental based on the older full.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT
is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet
the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, &
iPhoneDevCamp asthey present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian
Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://www.creativitycat.com
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
