Thomas Birnthaler wrote:
>
> 2. What is real benefit of incremental backups compared to full backups?

Normally they are faster and with non-rsync methods transfer much less data.

> In both cases only changed/new files use disk space according to the hardlink 
> concept of BackupPC.

That's after they get to the server.

> We have also detected, that in some cases incremental backups need much more 
> time than full backups (factor 3-5) This sounds odd to us.

This sounds like you are using rsync and doing infrequent fulls. 
Normally rsync incrementals transfer everything that has changed since 
the last full which is the comparison base.  Files added after the full 
are copied over again in every subsequent incremental.  If you have 3.x 
you can change this with $Conf{IncrLevels}.

Hmmm, it still doesn't make sense that a full would be faster than the 
prior incremental, though.  Are you sure you are comparing apples to 
apples on this?  Rsync incrementals should quickly ignore any files 
where the timestamp and size matches the backuppc copy where fulls will 
do the rsync block checksum compare over everything.


-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It is the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Xq1LFB
_______________________________________________
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/