Stefan Helfer wrote:
> Hello Iosif,
>
> Hooray, I have figured it out. It took me a few hours and more
> than 60 full backups, but I found the cause.
I admire your perseverance!
> My understanding and conclusion is now:
> BackupPC v3 shows the size of the backup as it would be restored to
> disk. With all hardlinks intact and used.
> BackupPC v4, on the other hand, shows the size of the backup as if
> all the hardlinks had been resolved into individual standalone
> copies of the files.
This sounds like a bug in V4, to me.
Just to be clear, we're talking about the size number reported here,
correct, on the "Host <foo> Backup Summary" page?
-----------------------------------
File Size/Count Reuse Summary
Existing files are those already in the pool; new files are those added to
the pool. Empty files and SMB errors aren't counted in the reuse and new
counts.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | Totals |Existing Files | New Files |
|------------+-----------------------+---------------+---------------|
|Backup#|Type|#Files|Size/MiB|MiB/sec|#Files|Size/MiB|#Files|Size/MiB|
|-------+----+------+--------+-------+------+--------+------+--------|
| 319 |full|226034| 76330.2| 68.89| 93| 7.5| 337| 415.0|
|-------+----+------+--------+-------+------+--------+------+--------|
^^^^^^
This number, 76330.2.
------------------------------------------------
If this number is wildly inflated by the presence of lots of
hard-linked files, then the results are very misleading. In the worst
case, it might not be clear that you could restore the backup to the
disk it came from.
Am I right?
paul
=----------------------
paul fox, [email protected] (arlington, ma, where it's 34.5 degrees)
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
[email protected]
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/wiki
Project: https://backuppc.github.io/backuppc/
