Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC4: checksum

[Craig Barratt via BackupPC-users]

I was hoping the docs were clear :).

"Filled" means a backup contains a complete representation of the backup.
No other backups have to be merged to view/browse/restore.  Any backup can
be filled.  The most recent backup is always filled.

Non-filled backups are represented only as deltas (changes) from the next
more recent backup.  So to view/browse/restore a non-filled backup,
BackupPC has to start with the nearest future filled backup, and work
backwards merging every delta until you get to the backup of interest.

The reason you want some backups periodically filled is that
viewing/browsing/restoring an old back would otherwise be very slow.  In
your example with FullPeriod = 120 and you keep 120+ incrementals, you will
have to merge 119 backups to view/browse/restore the backup from 119 days
ago.

By default (with $Conf{FillCycle}) set to zero, every full backup is
filled, and every incremental backup is not filled.  When $Conf{FillCycle}
is non-zero, some of the incrementals will be filled. In your case, if you
set $Conf{FillCycle} to 10, then every 10th backup will be filled, and
you'll only need to merge at most 9 deltas to view/browse/restore any older
backup.

Note that a filled backup does use more inodes than a delta (~3 per
directory), but otherwise doesn't use much more storage, so the cost is
relatively small in terms of storage.

Craig

On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Gandalf Corvotempesta <
gandalf.corvotempe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What's the difference between a filled backup and a full one?
>
> Currently I have set FullPeriod to 120 as we would like to only do
> incrementals, but what's the fillcycle?
> Doc's are unclear about this, at least for non native English readers
>
>
>
>
>
> Il 6 nov 2017 2:38 AM, "Craig Barratt via BackupPC-users" <
> backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net> ha scritto:
>
> Removing --checksum will make an rsync full behave just like an
> incremental.
>
> An equivalent, and clearer, way to do that is to only do incrementals.
> BackupPC 4.x allows you to do that.  That can be accomplished by setting
> $Conf{FullPeriod} to a large value.  You should also set $Conf{FillCycle}
> to, eg, 7, so that every 7th backup is stored filled (doesn't affect the
> client transfer).
>
> I agree with Les that a reasonable compromise is to set $Conf{FullPeriod}
> to, eg, 28 or 56 so you do actually get a full backup every 4 or 8 weeks.
>
> Craig
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Les Mikesell 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta
>>  wrote:
>> > I'm using ZFS, so checksumming is done by ZFS itself, is not an issue
>> for me
>> > to skip any data corruption check, as zfs does this automatically
>> >
>> > What I would like is to keep load as low as possible on clients and
>> > checksumming every file is slowing down everything
>>
>> I don't currently have a system running so I can't give very specific
>> advice, but if I were doing it I'd probably try to fix the schedule to
>> do fulls every 4 or 8 weeks and make them happen on weekends if that
>> is down time on the clients, skewing them so different large clients
>> get the full on different weekends and ones that complete overnight on
>> weekdays.Alternatively, if the target data is neatly subdivided
>> into top level directories, I might try to split runs to a single
>> large host giving it multiple names, each with different shares, using
>> ClientNameAlias to point it to the same target to make it possible to
>> split the fulls into different days so each completes in the available
>> time.
>>
>> --
>>Les Mikesell
>>  lesmikes...@gmail.com
>>
>> 
>> --
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> ___
>> BackupPC-users mailing list
>> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>> List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
>> Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
>> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>>
>
>
> 
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>
>
>
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
BackupPC-users mailing list

Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC4: checksum

[Gandalf Corvotempesta]

What's the difference between a filled backup and a full one?

Currently I have set FullPeriod to 120 as we would like to only do
incrementals, but what's the fillcycle?
Doc's are unclear about this, at least for non native English readers




Il 6 nov 2017 2:38 AM, "Craig Barratt via BackupPC-users" <
backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net> ha scritto:

Removing --checksum will make an rsync full behave just like an incremental.

An equivalent, and clearer, way to do that is to only do incrementals.
BackupPC 4.x allows you to do that.  That can be accomplished by setting
$Conf{FullPeriod} to a large value.  You should also set $Conf{FillCycle}
to, eg, 7, so that every 7th backup is stored filled (doesn't affect the
client transfer).

I agree with Les that a reasonable compromise is to set $Conf{FullPeriod}
to, eg, 28 or 56 so you do actually get a full backup every 4 or 8 weeks.

Craig

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Les Mikesell  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta
>  wrote:
> > I'm using ZFS, so checksumming is done by ZFS itself, is not an issue
> for me
> > to skip any data corruption check, as zfs does this automatically
> >
> > What I would like is to keep load as low as possible on clients and
> > checksumming every file is slowing down everything
>
> I don't currently have a system running so I can't give very specific
> advice, but if I were doing it I'd probably try to fix the schedule to
> do fulls every 4 or 8 weeks and make them happen on weekends if that
> is down time on the clients, skewing them so different large clients
> get the full on different weekends and ones that complete overnight on
> weekdays.Alternatively, if the target data is neatly subdivided
> into top level directories, I might try to split runs to a single
> large host giving it multiple names, each with different shares, using
> ClientNameAlias to point it to the same target to make it possible to
> split the fulls into different days so each completes in the available
> time.
>
> --
>Les Mikesell
>  lesmikes...@gmail.com
>
> 
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>



--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC4: checksum

[Craig Barratt via BackupPC-users]

Removing --checksum will make an rsync full behave just like an incremental.

An equivalent, and clearer, way to do that is to only do incrementals.
BackupPC 4.x allows you to do that.  That can be accomplished by setting
$Conf{FullPeriod} to a large value.  You should also set $Conf{FillCycle}
to, eg, 7, so that every 7th backup is stored filled (doesn't affect the
client transfer).

I agree with Les that a reasonable compromise is to set $Conf{FullPeriod}
to, eg, 28 or 56 so you do actually get a full backup every 4 or 8 weeks.

Craig

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Les Mikesell  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta
>  wrote:
> > I'm using ZFS, so checksumming is done by ZFS itself, is not an issue
> for me
> > to skip any data corruption check, as zfs does this automatically
> >
> > What I would like is to keep load as low as possible on clients and
> > checksumming every file is slowing down everything
>
> I don't currently have a system running so I can't give very specific
> advice, but if I were doing it I'd probably try to fix the schedule to
> do fulls every 4 or 8 weeks and make them happen on weekends if that
> is down time on the clients, skewing them so different large clients
> get the full on different weekends and ones that complete overnight on
> weekdays.Alternatively, if the target data is neatly subdivided
> into top level directories, I might try to split runs to a single
> large host giving it multiple names, each with different shares, using
> ClientNameAlias to point it to the same target to make it possible to
> split the fulls into different days so each completes in the available
> time.
>
> --
>Les Mikesell
>  lesmikes...@gmail.com
>
> 
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC4: checksum

[Les Mikesell]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta
 wrote:
> I'm using ZFS, so checksumming is done by ZFS itself, is not an issue for me
> to skip any data corruption check, as zfs does this automatically
>
> What I would like is to keep load as low as possible on clients and
> checksumming every file is slowing down everything

I don't currently have a system running so I can't give very specific
advice, but if I were doing it I'd probably try to fix the schedule to
do fulls every 4 or 8 weeks and make them happen on weekends if that
is down time on the clients, skewing them so different large clients
get the full on different weekends and ones that complete overnight on
weekdays.Alternatively, if the target data is neatly subdivided
into top level directories, I might try to split runs to a single
large host giving it multiple names, each with different shares, using
ClientNameAlias to point it to the same target to make it possible to
split the fulls into different days so each completes in the available
time.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC4: checksum

[Gandalf Corvotempesta]

Bpc is able to transfer only changed files even without checksum. If not,
incremental backups (that doesn't use checksum) won't be possible, that why
I'm asking if checksum is mandatory even for fulls

Il 27 ott 2017 6:26 PM, "Stefan Peter"  ha scritto:

> Dear Gandalf Corvotempesta
> On 27.10.2017 17:11, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:
> > I'm using ZFS, so checksumming is done by ZFS itself, is not an issue
> > for me to skip any data corruption check, as zfs does this automatically
>
> But this won't help BackupPC to decide which files have changed and,
> therefore, need to be transfered from the client to the server.
>
> With kind regards
>
> Stefan Peter
>
>
> --
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
> (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style for details)
>
> 
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC4: checksum

[Stefan Peter]

Dear Gandalf Corvotempesta
On 27.10.2017 17:11, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:
> I'm using ZFS, so checksumming is done by ZFS itself, is not an issue
> for me to skip any data corruption check, as zfs does this automatically

But this won't help BackupPC to decide which files have changed and,
therefore, need to be transfered from the client to the server.

With kind regards

Stefan Peter


-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style for details)

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC4: checksum

[Bzzzz]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:11:26 +0200
Gandalf Corvotempesta  wrote:

> I'm using ZFS, so checksumming is done by ZFS itself, is not an issue
> for me to skip any data corruption check, as zfs does this
> automatically

ZFS is very good at this, but for data I'd like to have both belt and
suspenders (note that there's still a pending important issue about
rewriting or not when meeting a bad sector, it's mitigated if you're
using mirrors (which you should), but with RAIDZ-n, it raises the
possibility of data loss.)

But from your other post (10x slower w/ chksum), I think there's no
question that removing it is the way to go for your case.

> What I would like is to keep load as low as possible on clients and
> checksumming every file is slowing down everything

As always in IT, the best compromise for your own case is always the
best of all ;-)

JY

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC4: checksum

[Bzzzz]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:03:45 -0500
Les Mikesell  wrote:

>   I thought in v4 this
> mechanism is also related to the ability to match copied, moved or
> renamed files to existing matching content in the pool, so removing it
> might be a bad idea aside from eliminating the check for corruption or
> changes in content that don't update the directory/inode.

Yep, I agree with you.

JY

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC4: checksum

[Gandalf Corvotempesta]

I'm using ZFS, so checksumming is done by ZFS itself, is not an issue for
me to skip any data corruption check, as zfs does this automatically

What I would like is to keep load as low as possible on clients and
checksumming every file is slowing down everything

Il 27 ott 2017 5:04 PM, "Les Mikesell"  ha scritto:

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:31 AM, B  wrote:
>
> Correction (as often,I read much too fast):
>
>> This i going against: "I don't think so, because on incrementals BPC
>> doesn't use "--checksum" at all." (v.4.x doc):
>
> The doc doesn't speak about incrementals (only fulls), but to be sure
> about this, you should look at rsync_bpc source.
>

The default for rsync is to quickly skip any files where the timestamp
and length match the existing copy.  v3 used --ignore-times on full
runs to go through the motions of transferring by comparing block
checksums and transferring any differences.  --checksum is similar but
uses a single checksum over the whole file.   I thought in v4 this
mechanism is also related to the ability to match copied, moved or
renamed files to existing matching content in the pool, so removing it
might be a bad idea aside from eliminating the check for corruption or
changes in content that don't update the directory/inode.

--
   Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC4: checksum

[Les Mikesell]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:31 AM, B  wrote:
>
> Correction (as often,I read much too fast):
>
>> This i going against: "I don't think so, because on incrementals BPC
>> doesn't use "--checksum" at all." (v.4.x doc):
>
> The doc doesn't speak about incrementals (only fulls), but to be sure
> about this, you should look at rsync_bpc source.
>

The default for rsync is to quickly skip any files where the timestamp
and length match the existing copy.  v3 used --ignore-times on full
runs to go through the motions of transferring by comparing block
checksums and transferring any differences.  --checksum is similar but
uses a single checksum over the whole file.   I thought in v4 this
mechanism is also related to the ability to match copied, moved or
renamed files to existing matching content in the pool, so removing it
might be a bad idea aside from eliminating the check for corruption or
changes in content that don't update the directory/inode.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC4: checksum

[Gandalf Corvotempesta]

In my case, using checksum will slow down everything about 10 times that's
why I've asked

A full backup without checksum usually takes about 6 hours, with checksum I
need 2 days

Il 27 ott 2017 4:25 PM, "B"  ha scritto:

> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:56:36 +0200
> Gandalf Corvotempesta  wrote:
>
> > What happens if I remove "--checksum" from "full" backups ?
>
> Monstrosities:
> * an A380 will holographically crash onto your house,
> * your dog/cat/children/wife/goldfish will turn gay,
> * you'll awake one morning and all your machines will be reinstalled with
>   DOS-2.0,
> * you'll dream of Bill Gates every night until you pass away,
> etc…
>
> and apart that, may be:
> http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/faq/BackupPC.html#Rsync-checksum-caching
> can help as a base; in v.4.x, there are some light differences:
> http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/BackupPC-4.1.3.html
>
> This i going against: "I don't think so, because on incrementals BPC
> doesn't use "--checksum" at all." (v.4.x doc):
>
> $Conf{RsyncFullArgsExtra} = [ ... ];
>
> Additional arguments for a full rsync or rsyncd backup.
>
> The --checksum argument causes the client to send full-file checksum
> for every file (meaning the client reads every file and computes the
> checksum, which is sent with the file list). On the server,
> rsync_bpc will skip any files that have a matching full-file
> checksum, and size, mtime and number of hardlinks. Any file that has
> different attributes will be updating using the block rsync
> algorithm.
>
> In V3, full backups applied the block rsync algorithm to every file,
> which is a lot slower but a bit more conservative. To get that
> behavior, replace --checksum with --ignore-times.
>
> the server may not send any chksum command, but this states that the
> client will anyway use them.
>
> So I'll join  "l, rick" saying that if you deactivate it, your full
> backups will take "a while" - test it, but you won't love it.
>
> Jean-Yves
>
> 
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC4: checksum

[Bzzzz]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 16:24:51 +0200
B  wrote:

Correction (as often,I read much too fast):

> This i going against: "I don't think so, because on incrementals BPC
> doesn't use "--checksum" at all." (v.4.x doc):

The doc doesn't speak about incrementals (only fulls), but to be sure
about this, you should look at rsync_bpc source.

JY

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC4: checksum

[Bzzzz]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:56:36 +0200
Gandalf Corvotempesta  wrote:

> What happens if I remove "--checksum" from "full" backups ?

Monstrosities:
* an A380 will holographically crash onto your house,
* your dog/cat/children/wife/goldfish will turn gay,
* you'll awake one morning and all your machines will be reinstalled with
  DOS-2.0,
* you'll dream of Bill Gates every night until you pass away,
etc…

and apart that, may be:
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/faq/BackupPC.html#Rsync-checksum-caching
can help as a base; in v.4.x, there are some light differences:
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/BackupPC-4.1.3.html

This i going against: "I don't think so, because on incrementals BPC
doesn't use "--checksum" at all." (v.4.x doc):

$Conf{RsyncFullArgsExtra} = [ ... ];

Additional arguments for a full rsync or rsyncd backup.

The --checksum argument causes the client to send full-file checksum
for every file (meaning the client reads every file and computes the
checksum, which is sent with the file list). On the server,
rsync_bpc will skip any files that have a matching full-file
checksum, and size, mtime and number of hardlinks. Any file that has
different attributes will be updating using the block rsync
algorithm.

In V3, full backups applied the block rsync algorithm to every file,
which is a lot slower but a bit more conservative. To get that
behavior, replace --checksum with --ignore-times.

the server may not send any chksum command, but this states that the
client will anyway use them.

So I'll join  "l, rick" saying that if you deactivate it, your full
backups will take "a while" - test it, but you won't love it.

Jean-Yves

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC4: checksum

[Gandalf Corvotempesta]

2017-10-27 15:10 GMT+02:00 l, rick :
> As I understand, you will pull all new files, instead of checking time
> stamps and hashing both ends, wasting storage space, as well as putting
> unneeded usage on the network.

I don't think so, because on incrementals BPC doesn't use "--checksum" at all.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC4: checksum

[l, rick]

As I understand, you will pull all new files, instead of checking time 
stamps and hashing both ends, wasting storage space, as well as putting 
unneeded usage on the network.


On 27-10-2017 06:56, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:

What happens if I remove "--checksum" from "full" backups ?

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/