Holger Parplies wrote: > 1.) That is what you are requesting BackupPC to do. > If you want your backups to depend on a different reference point > than the previous full backup, you can use IncrLevels. An incremental > backup *can* miss changes. That is highly unlikely with rsync but > remains possible. With increasing level, chances increase. So, doing > *exactly* as requested makes sense. > As with any backup scheme, only full backups are completely reliable.
How can it miss changes? How do full backups fix it? > 2.) Backup dependencies > A level 1 backup cannot depend on any other level 1 backup (because this > other backup can - and probably will - expire first). This is something else I don't understand. Why does it create dependencies? I thought BackupPC did something functionally equivalent to my hand-links method. With my method, I can safely delete any daily backup with full confidence that the others won't be affected, as I'm just deleting hard links. As long as a block of data has at least one hard link pointing to it (ie. as long as I need it) the file will be safe. I thought that BackupPC did something that was functionally equivalent with its pooling thing. Daniel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, & iPhoneDevCamp asthey present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://www.creativitycat.com _______________________________________________ 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/
