On 02/19 05:53 , Raman Gupta wrote: > Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote: > >>> If you're running >=v3 the following option will make all the incrementals > >>> sync against the previous incremental, instead of the last full. This > >>> keeps > >>> them from growing quite as quickly. (It's the behavior you expect from > >>> rsync). > >>> > >>> $Conf{IncrLevels} = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]; > >>> > >> I was under the assumption that BackupPC never transfers the same file > >> twice unless it changed after the last backup (either full or > >> incremental), even in the 2.x version. Was that an invalid assumption > >> on my part? > > > > That is incorrect. Backuppc does its incrementals against the last full; not > > against the previous incremental (unless you set $Conf{IncrLevels} = [1, 2, > > 3, 4, 5, 6];). > > So is it correct to say that when using rsync, its probably more > efficient to just turn off incrementals and always do fulls?
No, and a brief examination of the reports will make this clear. I'm not thoroughly clear on the difference; but backuppc 'fulls' using rsync do a more thorough set of checks than the 'incrementals'. Incrementals, even using rsync, are usually much faster than fulls. -- Carl Soderstrom Systems Administrator Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ 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/