Better than all 1? In theory, yes
1 - On backuppc there is no need to restore level 1 to 3 in order to allow
level 4 restoring.
2 - Neither there is the issue that a problem with a lower level previous
incremental backup gets corrupted and invalidate the following backups -
That can not be confused with stating that backuppc is problem free.
Those are clues to say that all level 1 can be the same of 1,2,3,4. Or not.
We can say that a backup level 4 will be made against previous level 3,
instead against last full.
Thus storing less differences (smaller and faster). we may think.
But that's, for sure, when incremental take space of their one, in a
separate file on disk/media.
With backuppc and the hardlink process, it's not smaller, I think. An
incremental will only create the files that are not on the previous
incremental (*), the rest will already be on the pool, just creates a
hardlink.
(*) Meaning "An incremental will only create the files that are not on the
pool already". Right?
So, smaller? I think not.
Safer? Don't see why.
Is it faster? Probably, but that depends on how the process work, and I
don't know to answer that.
Anyone? :)
Regards
Luis
PS: Maybe incremental is just here to make people used to "classical"
backups to feel comfortable. :)
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Inno <[email protected]> wrote:
> Humm... maybe
> IncrLevel = 1,2,3,4 it's bester ?
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
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/
