On 11/3/2010 2:26 PM, martin f krafft wrote:
>
>> I'd run new full backups as soon as practical. That will at least
>> fix up anything missing in the latest run which is usually the
>> most important.
>
> Yeah, that's surely a good idea. I was wondering mostly about
> cleanup actually.
>
> I assume BackupPC_nightly removes everything from the pool with
> a link count == 1. Hence, the worst that could happen is that all
> previous backups would be rendered invalid, no?

Yes, anything that is not linked by a current backup will be removed in 
the nightly runs.  The more subtle problem is that the corruption may 
have overwritten the contents of existing files - but I'm pretty sure 
that a full run will detect any content differences and fix things up. 
There would be a chance that it would miss something if blocks in the 
middle of a file changed and you are using the --checksum-seed option 
with rsync, though.  In that case it would use the cached checksums 
appended to the files instead of verifying all the way through.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Achieve Improved Network Security with IP and DNS Reputation.
Defend against bad network traffic, including botnets, malware, 
phishing sites, and compromised hosts - saving your company time, 
money, and embarrassment.   Learn More! 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpdev2dev-nov
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/