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/
