Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BackupPC\-users\]\s+restore\s+questions\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BackupPC\-users\]\s+restore\s+questions\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [BackupPC-users] restore questions (score: 1): Author: Nick Smith <nick.smith79 AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:33:11 -0500; I use backuppc to backup several windows servers across the internet. Some of which are rather large and on slow internet connections. With frequent disconnects or other random errors it has taken al; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-01/msg00255.html (13,323 bytes)
2. Re: [BackupPC-users] restore questions (score: 1): Author: "Jon Craig" <cannedspam.cant AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 12:42:31 -0500; I think you will find that subsequent full backups will take just a little longer than the incrementals. New full backups will only transfer changed files rather than a complete new backup. The diffe; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-01/msg00259.html (15,809 bytes)
3. Re: [BackupPC-users] restore questions (score: 1): Author: Nick Smith <nick.smith79 AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:13:49 -0500; So is the way im doing it now going to work if i need to do a restore down the road? Would doing full backups be better than incrementals? doing incrementals? Or is it because most of the files are a; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-01/msg00260.html (18,029 bytes)
4. Re: [BackupPC-users] restore questions (score: 1): Author: Les Mikesell <les AT futuresource DOT com>; Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 12:51:51 -0600; Fulls are better. They take more time because the file is read for the checksum comparison but they don't take a lot more bandwidth. And depending on your settings, incrementals may transfer all diff; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-01/msg00261.html (13,800 bytes)
5. Re: [BackupPC-users] restore questions (score: 1): Author: Adam Goryachev <mailinglists AT websitemanagers.com DOT au>; Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:38:51 +1100; Other people have pretty much answered your questions already, but I'll pass on my experience with backuppc as well as an extra data point for you. I am using the older backuppc 2.1.2pl1 from Debian; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-01/msg00273.html (14,815 bytes)
6. Re: [BackupPC-users] restore questions (score: 1): Author: Nick Smith <nick.smith79 AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:29:37 -0500; Thanks for taking the time to respond, I did learn something from your post though, i didnt know that didnt matter how many levels you have that backuppc would automatically restore the latest versi; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-01/msg00274.html (15,052 bytes)
7. Re: [BackupPC-users] restore questions (score: 1): Author: "Nils Breunese (Lemonbit)" <nils AT lemonbit DOT com>; Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:35:26 +0100; I think a mix of full and incremental backups is still the best configuraiton. Full backups take longer (at least on our BackupPC servers), probably because it takes more resources to compare all fil; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-01/msg00275.html (13,238 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]