On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 12:45 -0700, Harry Mangalam wrote: > >From the 'looking a gift horse in the mouth' department, I was chatting with > >a > local backup guru about the advantages of backuppc when he mentioned a > feature that I think backuppc lacks. If it is lacking, how does one best > address the deficit? > > The (possible) deficit relates to the way many mail and log spools are > treated - single large files that are continually appended to. Does backuppc > treat these files as completely new files or can it treat the appended info > as a diff and only backup the difference, appending it to the stored file on > the server?
They will be treated as different files in the pool. > To be more simplistic, if my mail file spool folder was 200MBs, and adds 25K > in the course of a day, will the entire 200MB file get backed up afresh at > each backup? Or only the 25K that's new? I use kmail, which segments mail > into small files, so this isn't a problem for me, but it certainly is a > problem for many who use single mail spool files and the like. If you use mbox format, (one big file), each run would make a new pool copy after compression. If you use maildir format, only the new files would be added. Likewise if you let your log files grow forever you'll end up with a lot of duplication (although logs usually compress a lot). If you run a logrotate utility to frequently start new logs the old ones will be pooled even if they are renamed as they age. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
