On 07/09 08:22 , Rob Owens wrote: > I see that the only difference between rsync "full" and rsync > "incremental" backups is that "full" uses the --ignore-times option. > Under what circumstances would this option be desirable? Seems to me > that doing incremental backups forever would suffice, but maybe I'm > missing something. What is the risk associated with only performing > incremental backups with rsync?
BackupPC takes 'incrementals' against the last 'full' backup. So the farther you get from the last 'full', the bigger your delta against it will be. Obviously this depends heavily on how often your data changes; but it makes sense to run a full backup occasionally. I think there may be some other things as well, regarding testing for file corruption on the server side. The way I tend to think of it (and I may be completely off base here) is that 'fulls' are like what you get if you just run the 'rsync' tool from the command line with no fancy options. 'Incrementals' are a faster way to do things. Always keep in mind tho that BackupPC is *not* using the rsync tool on the server side. It's using the File::RsyncP Perl module. -- Carl Soderstrom Systems Administrator Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
