++ 26/05/08 15:50 -0500 - Les Mikesell:
>> I noticed this issue when I was adding 30 GB of static data to the
>> remote server. In the first night I saw a lot of extra traffic. But,
>> in the following nights I saw that same pattern again (a lot more 
>> bandwith being used). As these additional 30 GB are static content, I 
>> would expect all nights but the first to see limited amount of traffic.
[...]
>Do you have a complete full run? Incrementals should not transfer 
>anything that was in the previous full, and subsequent fulls should 
>only do block-checksum comparisons over the old files which takes some 
>time but not a lot of bandwidth.

Yes, there is at least a full backup. As described above, when I added 
the 30G of additional (and static) data, I can see a lot of traffic for 
a longer period of time. There were no errors or anything similar. Then, 
the next night, I can see exactly the same pattern in traffic. No 
errors. Third night, same story.  


-- 
Rejo Zenger . <rejo AT zenger DOT nl> . 0x75FC50F3 . <https://rejo.zenger.nl>

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

_______________________________________________
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/