Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Bacula\-users\]\s+incremental\s+backups\s+too\s+large\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: Lawrence Strydom <qholloi AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:43:10 +0200
Hi list. My understanding of an incremental backup is that only changed data is backed up. I use Bacula for backups to a disk array and configured it to do full backups once a month and daily increme
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00311.html (12,985 bytes)

2. Re: [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: Kleber Leal <kleber.leal AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:15:27 -0300
Yes. The entire file is backed up again when gets modification. Incremental backups include all modified files since last backup (Full, Incremental ou differential). Incremental and differential are
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00313.html (14,757 bytes)

3. Re: [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: Bart Swedrowski <bart AT timedout DOT org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:42:22 +0000
2011/1/12 Kleber Leal <kleber.leal AT gmail DOT com> I think what Lawrence meant was that say full backup takes 33GB, as the one below. 464,798 | 33,390,404,320 | T | Now, if you do Incremental backu
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00321.html (14,353 bytes)

4. Re: [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: Valerio Pachera <sirio81 AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:46:22 +0100
2011/1/12 Lawrence Strydom <qholloi AT gmail DOT com>: The only program I know that work in that way is rdiff-backup. It's very efficent in saving sapce but you do now have something centralized like
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00326.html (13,528 bytes)

5. Re: [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: Bruno Friedmann <bruno AT ioda-net DOT ch>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:42:48 +0100
First there's something adding data everyday, so that's why there's more and more data. You didn't tell us what kind of Incremental you do, so fileset definition could help us. (also basic informatio
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00332.html (16,535 bytes)

6. Re: [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: John Drescher <drescherjm AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:02:32 -0500
I hope you put a limit on the file size or usage duration so that this volume does not grow until it fills up the disk. Remember / retention does not work until the volume is marked Full or used and
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00334.html (13,564 bytes)

7. Re: [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: Mark <bacula-list AT nerdish DOT us>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:32:58 -0600
464,798 | 33,390,404,320 | T         | Now, if you do Incremental backup, it's going to be reported by bconsole as even bigger, eg.: 6,573 | 39,758,701,241 | T         | 4,585 | 39,502,153,253 | T  
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00337.html (16,759 bytes)

8. Re: [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: Lawrence Strydom <qholloi AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 22:44:12 +0200
Hi And thanks for all the replies so far. I'm running Bacula 5.0.3 on OpenSuSE 11.3. Self compiled with the following configure options:  --enable-smartalloc --sbindir=/usr/local/bacula/bin --sysconf
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00338.html (21,371 bytes)

9. Re: [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: Guy <guy AT britewhite DOT net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:02:23 +0000
Sorry Bacula is not that clever..indeed it's just checking for files which changes.. It's not able to determine how the file changed, or just back up those bits which changed. --Guy Sent from my iPad
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00340.html (23,704 bytes)

10. Re: [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: Blake Dunlap <ikiris AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:04:40 -0600
2011/1/13 Lawrence Strydom <qholloi AT gmail DOT com> Hi And thanks for all the replies so far. I'm running Bacula 5.0.3 on OpenSuSE 11.3. Self compiled with the following configure options:  --enabl
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00342.html (17,330 bytes)

11. Re: [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: Lawrence Strydom <qholloi AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 06:57:05 +0200
You'll only get close to the sort of behaviour you want (i.e., only the changed data in the file is backed up) if and when Bacula gains some measure of deduplication support.  (Maybe not even then,
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00345.html (16,709 bytes)

12. Re: [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: Paul Mather <paul AT gromit.dlib.vt DOT edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:27:19 -0500
Because Bacula is file-based (as are most other backup systems), and not, say, block-based (like, e.g., Norton Ghost), "many messages in a single file" mailbox formats like PST and mbox will tend to
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00346.html (15,870 bytes)

13. Re: [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: Guy <guy AT britewhite DOT net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 07:36:52 +0000
You'll only get close to the sort of behaviour you want (i.e., only the changed data in the file is backed up) if and when Bacula gains some measure of deduplication support. (Maybe not even then, d
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00347.html (18,172 bytes)

14. Re: [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: Bart Swedrowski <bart AT timedout DOT org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:23:37 +0000
2011/1/13 Mark <bacula-list AT nerdish DOT us>: Yeah, I tried that, too. It's only listing files that got changed/are new and should be backed up. Although, total is still very high. +--+--+--+--+--+
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00348.html (15,711 bytes)

15. Re: [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: Bart Swedrowski <bart AT timedout DOT org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:47:14 +0000
Sorry - that is Bacula 5.0.3-1 re-compiled from sources on www.bacula.org. -- Protect Your Site and Customers from Malware Attacks Learn about various malware tactics and how to avoid them. Understan
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00349.html (13,935 bytes)

16. Re: [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: Martin Simmons <martin AT lispworks DOT com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:18:47 GMT
It sounds like you have some large files which compress a lot. I would take the output of 'list files jobid=<some job>' and write a script to find the size of every file in the list to verify why it
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00374.html (15,081 bytes)

17. Re: [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: Bart Swedrowski <bart AT timedout DOT org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:26:26 +0000
It sounds like you have some large files which compress a lot. Nah, I don't think that is the case.  I know what are those files and those are mainly small, tiny files like emails, small log files. H
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00380.html (19,056 bytes)

18. Re: [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: Eric Bollengier <eric.bollengier AT baculasystems DOT com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:12:11 +0100
Hello, It sounds to be a bug when the FileDaemon is computing the checksum of the file, it updates the Bytes Written counter when it shouldn't. Looks trivial to fix, but I need some time to test the
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00383.html (14,008 bytes)

19. Re: [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: Bart Swedrowski <bart AT timedout DOT org>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 14:27:48 +0000
It sounds to be a bug when the FileDaemon is computing the checksum of the file, it updates the Bytes Written counter when it shouldn't. Looks trivial to fix, but I need some time to test the patch T
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00384.html (13,892 bytes)

20. Re: [Bacula-users] incremental backups too large (score: 1)
Author: Eric Bollengier <eric.bollengier AT baculasystems DOT com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:37:17 +0100
Le samedi 15 janvier 2011 15:27:48, Bart Swedrowski a écrit : It could be a good idea to keep a record of this problem, please go ahead. Most bacula users won't have this problem, but if you charge y
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-01/msg00385.html (13,836 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu