On 2009-02-18, Les Mikesell <[email protected]> wrote: > John Goerzen wrote: >> So, given that, I don't really understand why there is a distinction >> between a full and an incremental backup. Shouldn't either one take >> up the same amount of space? That is, if you've got few changes on >> the client, then on the server you're mostly just hardlinking things >> anyway, right? So why is there a choice? > > With the tar and smb backup methods, full runs transfer everything from > the remote, incrementals transfer only files with timestamps newer than > the last full. With rsync, a full does a block checksum compare of all > files, incrementals only files where the timestamp or length differ. On > the server side, fulls rebuild a complete tree of links, incrementals > only have the differing files.
So, if I use the rsync method, is there any reason to ever run a full backup after the very first one? It seems like all the info needed would be preserved, even if that very first full backup gets deleted eventually, right? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ 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/
