Rob Owens writes:
> Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
> > It would also be nice at times to be able to one-time-schedule the next
> > backup of a particular host to be a full backup (for instance, if you knew
> > that you'd just added some data). The way to do this right now is:
> > - Start the backu
Jacob writes:
> If this is really the way backuppc does incremental backups, I think
> backuppc should be a bit more incremental with its incremental
> backups. Instead of comparing against the last full, it should
> compare against the last full and incremental backups. This would
> solve this pr
On 08/26 04:38 , Holger Parplies wrote:
> Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote on 21.08.2007 at 09:04:40 [[BackupPC-users]
> wishlist: full backups whenever incrementals get too large]:
> > [...]
> > Would it be reasonable to have backuppc check the time used by the last
> > incr
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Rob Owens wrote:
>> Holger Parplies wrote:
>>> - The higher the level of the incremental backup, the greater the
>>> speedup,
>>> but the less certain you are of not having missed some changes.
>> In the case of rsync, is a greater speedup achieved due to 1) less
>> calcul
Rob Owens wrote:
> Holger Parplies wrote:
>> - The higher the level of the incremental backup, the greater the speedup,
>> but the less certain you are of not having missed some changes.
> In the case of rsync, is a greater speedup achieved due to 1) less
> calculations to make about what to tran
Holger Parplies wrote:
> - The higher the level of the incremental backup, the greater the speedup,
> but the less certain you are of not having missed some changes.
In the case of rsync, is a greater speedup achieved due to 1) less
calculations to make about what to transfer, or 2) less actual t
Hi all,
Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote on 21.08.2007 at 09:04:40 [[BackupPC-users]
wishlist: full backups whenever incrementals get too large]:
> [...]
> Would it be reasonable to have backuppc check the time used by the last
> incremental against the time used by the last full, and if i
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:14:39 +0200
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 August 2007, Jacob wrote:
> > If this is really the way backuppc does incremental backups, I think
> > backuppc should be a bit more incremental with its incremental backups.
> > Instead of comparing against th
On Tuesday 21 August 2007, you wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
> >> If this is really the way backuppc does incremental backups, I think
> >> backuppc should be a bit more incremental with its incremental
> >> backups. Instead of comparing against the last full, it should compare
> >> against the last fu
> If this is really the way backuppc does incremental backups, I think backuppc
> should be a bit more incremental with its incremental backups. Instead of
> comparing against the last full, it should compare against the last full and
> incremental backups. This would solve this problem and mak
Frans Pop wrote:
>> If this is really the way backuppc does incremental backups, I think
>> backuppc should be a bit more incremental with its incremental backups.
>> Instead of comparing against the last full, it should compare against the
>> last full and incremental backups. This would solve th
Jacob wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:38:10 -0400
> Rob Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
>>
>>> It would also be nice at times to be able to one-time-schedule the next
>>> backup of a particular host to be a full backup (for instance, if you knew
>>> th
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:38:10 -0400
Rob Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
> > It would also be nice at times to be able to one-time-schedule the next
> > backup of a particular host to be a full backup (for instance, if you knew
> > that you'd just added some d
On Tuesday 21 August 2007, Jacob wrote:
> If this is really the way backuppc does incremental backups, I think
> backuppc should be a bit more incremental with its incremental backups.
> Instead of comparing against the last full, it should compare against the
> last full and incremental backups. T
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:04:40 -0500
Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just noticed today that one of the hosts I'm backing up, is suddenly
> taking much longer to back up. Looks like someone put a large quantity of
> new data on it.
>
> Problem is that whereas the full backups
Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
> It would also be nice at times to be able to one-time-schedule the next
> backup of a particular host to be a full backup (for instance, if you knew
> that you'd just added some data). The way to do this right now is:
> - Start the backup right now while you're th
I just noticed today that one of the hosts I'm backing up, is suddenly
taking much longer to back up. Looks like someone put a large quantity of
new data on it.
Problem is that whereas the full backups used to take (as a proportional
scale) 1x, and incrementals perhaps 0.2x, the latest incremental
17 matches
Mail list logo
