Hello Paul, You are absolutely right, I am talking about that number. The behaviour can be reproduced by creating a 500 MiB binary file.
dd if=/dev/urandom of=/demo/blob1.bin bs=1M count=500 Now back up the directory in which the file is located. The backup will be 500 MiB in size. Now a hardlink is created. ln blob1.bin blob2.bin If you now back up again, the backup will be shown as twice as big. Now it depends on whether this is considered a desired behaviour or not. Greetings Stefan Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. Dezember 2022 um 15:58 Uhr Von: "Paul Fox" <p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us> An: "General list for user discussion, questions and support" <backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net> Betreff: Re: [BackupPC-users] File Size Summary shows too large value for host 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, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 34.5 degrees) _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/wiki[https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/wiki] Project: https://backuppc.github.io/backuppc/[https://backuppc.github.io/backuppc/] _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/wiki Project: https://backuppc.github.io/backuppc/
