On Monday 2015-08-17 13:25:59 Waqar Khan wrote:
> Heitor, Josip,
> 
> Thanks for the replies. That does make sense. 
> 
> I don't see a huge benefit at the moment from doing differential
> backups. Most of the data which is backed up is not changing but being
> added to ( so volumes are getting bigger due to additional files). In
> the video its explained that if same files are being changed then there
> is not much benfit in terms of space saving for incremental. One thing
> I didn't understand is why would one do incremental AND diff backups?
> Surely only one should be the strategy right?  

As Heitor said, it depends on your workload and files that get changed.

For example, if you are using tapes and every day the same files will
get modified than the differential backup wouldn't save your time
during restore but also it wouldn't take longer than incremental.

This is of course just an example.

On my systems a bunch of different files get modified and not all of
them get modified each day.
Since the differential type of the backup would backup all the files
modified since the last full backup it means than during the
restore it would need to load just a few volumes as oppose to the case
without differential backup where your files would have a better
chance to get scattered over a number of different volumes.

I am using file volumes but for some reason I am still doing differential
backups every two weeks.

> In theory do incremenal backup will take much less time?

It depends on the files that get modified. Usually yes but not
significantly. It depends on the frequency your data is being modified.


-- 
Josip Deanovic

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users