Kenneth Porter wrote:
>
>> just a hint there though, look into using rsync instead of tar if you can.
>> rsync will transfer far less data during your incrementals.
>
> I'm using smb (easy to set up initially) and was considering deploying
> rsync to my Windows 2003 servers. How does the smbclient's incremental tar
> actually work? Is it using some incremental feature of the SMB protocol I'd
> been previously unaware of, or is it just enumerating the remote directory
> tree and collecting files with timestamps newer than a reference timestamp?
Yes, smb incrementals are strictly based on timestamps being newer since
it has nothing else to go on. It won't catch new files copied in with a
technique that maintains an old timestamp or old files in their new
location under a renamed directory.
> Will rsync also look only for "newer" files or will it also detect the
> arrival of older files (eg. copied in from a workstation that touched them
> before the last full backup)?
Rsync incrementals compare to the reference directory and will catch
files that differ in any way that can be deduced from the directory
(i.e. did not exist at all, timestamps older as well as newer, different
lengths, etc.).
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
[email protected]
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
