On 05/08/16 04:42, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Adam Goryachev <mailinglists AT websitemanagers.com DOT 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 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/