On 2009-02-18, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> John Goerzen wrote:
>> So, given that, I don't really understand why there is a distinction
>> between a full and an incremental backup.  Shouldn't either one take
>> up the same amount of space?  That is, if you've got few changes on
>> the client, then on the server you're mostly just hardlinking things
>> anyway, right?  So why is there a choice?
>
> With the tar and smb backup methods, full runs transfer everything from 
> the remote, incrementals transfer only files with timestamps newer than 
> the last full.  With rsync, a full does a block checksum compare of all 
> files, incrementals only files where the timestamp or length differ.  On 
> the server side, fulls rebuild a complete tree of links, incrementals 
> only have the differing files.

So, if I use the rsync method, is there any reason to ever run a full
backup after the very first one?  It seems like all the info needed
would be preserved, even if that very first full backup gets deleted
eventually, right?



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA
-OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise
-Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation
-Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD
http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H
_______________________________________________
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/