Hi,
Timothy J Massey wrote on 2011-09-02 10:43:37 -0400 [Re: [BackupPC-users] Linux
backups with rsync vs tar]:
> charlesboyo wrote on 08/31/2011 05:53:43
> AM:
> [...]
> > Thus I have reason to suspect the rsync overhead as being guilty.
for the record, I've just (finally
"Jeffrey J. Kosowsky" wrote on 09/02/2011 02:37:31
PM:
> Timothy J Massey wrote at about 10:43:37 -0400 on Friday, September 2,
2011:
>
> > Your old backups should be 100% fine. They will remain in the pool
just
> > fine, etc. I do not believe that files transferred by rsync will
pool
Timothy J Massey wrote at about 10:43:37 -0400 on Friday, September 2, 2011:
> Your old backups should be 100% fine. They will remain in the pool just
> fine, etc. I do not believe that files transferred by rsync will pool
> with files transferred by tar (due to the attribute issue you men
charlesboyo wrote on 08/31/2011
05:53:43 AM:
> I'm using BackupPC to take daily backups of a maildir totaling 250
> GB with average file sizes of 500 MB (text mailboxes, these files
> change everyday).
> Currently, my setup take full backups once a week and incremental
> backups every day bet
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:53 AM, charlesboyo
wrote:
>
> I'm using BackupPC to take daily backups of a maildir totaling 250 GB with
> average file sizes of 500 MB (text mailboxes, these files change everyday).
'Maildir' usually refers to a format where each message is in its own
file. However, t
tar is faster since it doesn't spend hours building a file list should
there be thousands or millions of files involved.
--
Special Offer -- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE!
Finally, a world-class log management solution
On 08/31 02:53 , charlesboyo wrote:
> 1. since over 90% of the files change every day and "incremental" backups
> involve transferring the whole file to the BackupPC server, won't it make
> better sense to just run a full backup everyday?
> 2. from Pavel's questions, he observed that BackupPC is
