Daniel Carrera wrote:
> 
>> the reference backup
>> for an incremental rsync backup is the *previous backup of lower level* of 
>> the
>> host. Level 1 incrementals will re-transmit any changed files until the next
>> full backup (because they are relative to the previous full, not to each
>> other).
> 
> That seems wasteful. Why is it like that?

The original version only had the timestamp-based tar and smb methods 
and work like more traditional backups.  The rsync-in-perl code was 
added later and stayed mostly compatible until the option for 
incremental level settings was added in recent versions.

>> The next full will not re-transmit these files (unless they have
>> changed once again).
> 
> So it's possible that a full backup runs faster than an incremental 
> because it doesn't have to transmit everything again?

The full itself would take as long - but the one following the full 
which becomes the next reference copy could be much faster than another 
incremental based on the older full.

-- 
    Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT
is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet
the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, & 
iPhoneDevCamp asthey present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian
Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://www.creativitycat.com 
_______________________________________________
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/