On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:00:26 +0200, "Yuri D'Elia" writes: >I like how duplicity works, but having overlong backup chains to conserve >bandwidth/space puts too much pressure on the reliability of the remote >destination.
that's the usual backup tradeoff. >Is there a reason as of why "incremental" could not accept a "-t" argument to >specify which archive to use as the previous archive and let me manage the >storage by myself? not being the upstream author i'd say over-complexity would be a reason. (and for "letting you manage storage yourself" there's rdiffdir.) i'm happy to forward that bug report upstream, if and when i've fully understood your request: do you mean that level-1 incrementals should be possible as alternative to level-n's? (ie. diff against last full, not diff against last backup) i can see why this would be good for reliability (instead of a long chain you'd have a broad forest of level-1s), but storage-wise it will be worse than the current scheme. regards az -- + Alexander Zangerl + DSA 42BD645D + (RSA 5B586291) Ich kenne auch ein Klo, wo "Austria Email" draufsteht. Das ist wahrscheinlich eine Art Rohrpost. -- Robert Bihlmeyer in at.sonstiges
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature
