Author: wvoice <myoung AT wildernessvoice DOT com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:12:17 -0800 (PST)
Hi, I'm currently using bacula-3.0.3 (and some systems have 3.1.4) to backup a bunch of Linux and Windows machines. These backups are local and everything is working fantastically with that. However,
Isn't the quick'n'dirty solution not just to make the individual volume-files smaller? Say 100MB or similar. The for differential/incremental runs you would eventually end up only transferring the di
Author: Gavin McCullagh <gavin.mccullagh AT gcd DOT ie>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:03:00 +0000
Hi, I was under the impression that rsync was very smart about updating the contents of a file. If (for the sake of argument) you had an incremental volume which you wrote to every night, you should
Author: wvoice <myoung AT wildernessvoice DOT com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:27:30 -0800 (PST)
Hi Gavin, I don't know either. That's the big concern for me. I suppose I can test that out. My other thought was to take my full backups and restore them onto a USB drive so I can directly upload th
Author: Kevin Keane <subscription AT kkeane DOT com>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:47:41 -0800
You could take the approach of "append to incremental file every night" but I don't think it would help you, and actually would hurt. Your idea of using small, 100 MB volumes to encourage rsync to wo