> The previous full run is used as the comparison unless you have > configured incremental levels. But, why not just do more frequent full > runs to keep the base more current? Fulls take longer in elapsed time > because the remote files are all read for comparison, but they don't use > a lot more bandwidth than incrementals. > > -- > Les Mikesell
hey Les, thanks for your comments. I can see on the list this subject is a common one so sorry for you having to repeat yourself. I have had a good read, I believe the following is correct... -for rsyncd, fulls and incrementals are the same other than the fact that full takes longer checking all files. The reason full is the same is due to it will not transfer any files in the pool that are the same, hence it only transfers changes... just like incrementals -if have 1 full and 7 incrementals, the next full will hard-link back to any full and incremental backups it needs to use. Therefore not all files will be transferred again -when an old backup comes up to expire, I guess any files that are not hard linked are deleted - not all of them You said "why not just do more frequent full runs to keep the base more current?" - why is this different than incremental? Full and incremental to me just sound more logical and the extra time on the client to do the processing of a full I can schedule for a weekend. thank you for your time making this clear for me ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ 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/
