Thomas Birnthaler wrote: > > 2. What is real benefit of incremental backups compared to full backups?
Normally they are faster and with non-rsync methods transfer much less data. > In both cases only changed/new files use disk space according to the hardlink > concept of BackupPC. That's after they get to the server. > We have also detected, that in some cases incremental backups need much more > time than full backups (factor 3-5) This sounds odd to us. This sounds like you are using rsync and doing infrequent fulls. Normally rsync incrementals transfer everything that has changed since the last full which is the comparison base. Files added after the full are copied over again in every subsequent incremental. If you have 3.x you can change this with $Conf{IncrLevels}. Hmmm, it still doesn't make sense that a full would be faster than the prior incremental, though. Are you sure you are comparing apples to apples on this? Rsync incrementals should quickly ignore any files where the timestamp and size matches the backuppc copy where fulls will do the rsync block checksum compare over everything. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It is the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Xq1LFB _______________________________________________ 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/