It is BackupPC 3.0 but recently upgraded from 2.1.2.
I have only $Conf{IncrLevels} = [1];
Are you suggesting I implement multi-levels?
Tony
On Jun 21, 2007, at 10:34 AM, Stephen Joyce wrote:
> If you're using 2.1.x, then yes. All incrementals are based off of
> the full and will check/transfer those large directories again.
>
> If you're using 3.x, then no. Only the incrementals that are the
> same or lower level numerically than the first incremental will
> check/transfer those large directories.
>
> If the initial full is failing due to timeout issues, you can
> increase the timeout.
>
>> From http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/faq/BackupPC.html
>
>
> $Conf{ClientTimeout} = 72000;
>
> Timeout in seconds when listening for the transport program's
> (smbclient, tar etc) stdout. If no output is received during this
> time, then it is assumed that something has wedged during a backup,
> and the backup is terminated.
>
> Note that stdout buffering combined with huge files being
> backed up could cause longish delays in the output from smbclient
> that BackupPC_dump sees, so in rare cases you might want to
> increase this value.
>
> Despite the name, this parameter sets the timeout for all
> transport methods (tar, smb etc).
>
> Upgrading to 3.x is worthwhile.
>
> Cheers, Stephen
> --
> Stephen Joyce
> Systems Administrator P
> A N I C
> Physics & Astronomy Department Physics &
> Astronomy
> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Network
> Infrastructure
> voice: (919) 962-7214 and
> Computing
> fax: (919) 962-0480 http://
> www.panic.unc.edu
>
> Some people make the world turn and others just watch it spin.
> -- Jimmy Buffet
>
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Tony Schreiner wrote:
>
>> I'm experiencing something and I just want to check if I'm
>> understanding what is happening.
>>
>>
>> I backup Linux-Linux with XferMethod = rsync. Occasionally a full
>> backup of one of my large systems fails for one reason or another. So
>> I exclude some big directories and run it again, and then have the
>> subsequent incrementals get the previously excluded directory.
>>
>> However, and this is the part I'm not completely sure of, each
>> subsequent incremental copies the originally missing files over and
>> over and declares them pooled rather than same.
>>
>> I thinks this is the way it is designed, but it is a problem in this
>> case, because copying these large files from large directories has a
>> strong performance impact on the client machine (which annoys my
>> users).
>>
>> Is this indeed what is happening? And is there anything I can do
>> about it, short of running an unscheduled full backup?
>>
>> Tony Schreiner
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>> This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
>> Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
>> control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
>> http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
>> _______________________________________________
>> BackupPC-users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
>> http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
