On 05/08/16 04:42, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Adam Goryachev <mailingli...@websitemanagers.com.au> [2016-08-04 > 15:47 +0200]: >> On 4/08/2016 23:43, martin f krafft wrote: > >> It should work as you said, but if you never have enough time to >> transfer the second file, then you won't actually proceed. >> BackupPC will still check every file "before" the second file in >> case there have been changes there, but ultimately, if the second >> file is too big to transfer within the allotted time, then it >> can't succeed. > I do wonder if it woulnd't make sense to > > (a) randomise the order of files > (b) update partial backups > > for the combination of those two will mean that over time, even > a partial backup will become more and more useful, don't you think? > The order that files are processed depends on the client, without using non-standard client tools, we can't influence/change that. We do update a partial backup, as long as the new partial contains more files than the previous partial, but it doesn't even save a partially transferred file. In some ways, (I've also asked for this a few years ago), it would be nice, because as you said, over time you would get more and more of the file, and eventually complete it (and each time it would be "more useful"). However, the decision was made to ensure that either the file is correct (complete) or missing, and that argument does also make sense (I see the reasons for both options, just neither option is 100% right for everybody).
Regards, Adam -- Adam Goryachev Website Managers www.websitemanagers.com.au ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/
