Thomas Birnthaler wrote at about 00:00:53 +0100 on Friday, January 9, 2009: > Hello, > > we are using BackupPC and it works perfect on different places. > But we have 2 questions on it: > > 1. We wonder why neither the GUI nor the commands offer a possibility to > delete backups (full and incremental). If e.g. the backup partition is > filled
Someone has written a bash routine called I think BackupPC_deleteBackup (see: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net/How+to+delete+backups) that allows you to delete individual backups -- either full or incremental -- along with any dependent higher level incremental backups. It is necessary to also delete the dependent backups or else they are no longer accurate as-is (note the program I wrote BackupPC_deleteFiles goes through a *lot* of painful chains and cases to allow you to delete individual files from individual backups but it would be very slow to extend this to an entire backup). > up, this would be very helpful. > > As far as we understood the concept of using hardlinks and different > directories for each backup + a hash pool for each file it seems to be very > easy to delete a backup NN. > > Just delete recursively the backup directory NN and the nightly run will > really destroy all orphaned files with a hardlink count of 1. > You need to also delete the higher level incremental backups or they will be wrong/meaningless. Also you probably want to adjust the backup info file -- this is done correctly by the program I reference above. > If a full backup is deleted that way, incremental backups depending on it > then > depend on the next earlyer full backup and work as before. Same is true for > incremental backups. So the GUI works as before and the creation of new > backups too. > > Is that idea correct? NOPE - incremental backups by definition are meaningless/invalid if you delete lower level full or incremental backups on which they depend. > > 2. What is real benefit of incremental backups compared to full backups? Speed of backup. > > In both cases only changed/new files use disk space according to the > hardlink > concept of BackupPC. > > 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. Seems odd... > > Thanx > Thomas Birnthaler > -- > OSTC Open Source Training and Consulting GmbH / HRB Nuernberg 20032 > tel +49 911-3474544 / fax +49 911-1806277 / http://www.ostc.de > Delsenbachweg 32 / D-90425 Nuernberg / Geschaeftsfuehrung: > Thomas Birnthaler / +49 171-3047465 / t...@ostc.de / pgp 0xFEE7EB4C > Hermann Gottschalk / +49 173-3600680 / h...@ostc.de / pgp 0x0B2D8EEA > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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/