On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikes...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks Les. So my snip above does hold when trying to conserve >> bandwidth (say over a WAN), but at the potential cost of increasing >> the time the backup session requires. In a high-speed local >> environment, processing time can be reduced by always using >> "differential" between fulls (by not enabling the "incremental" >> option). >> >> This only becomes a question if I got it wrong 8-) > > The more significant difference may be the wall-clock time time for a > full rsync run, which always does a full read of all the data on the > remote side for a block checksum comparison, and may need to > read/uncompress on the server side. If that isn't an issue you can > just do frequent fulls and not worry about doing rsyncs against > incremental levels. If it is an issue, or you want to use the least > bandwidth possible, then you might use incremental levels and less > frequent fulls.
Yes, in my current usage, I've only been doing fulls since figuring out it didn't impact storage space usage. I just wanted to clarify understanding the trade-offs between the "other flavors" for future reference in possible other contexts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Write once. Port to many. Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev _______________________________________________ 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/
