Holger Parplies wrote:
> 1.) That is what you are requesting BackupPC to do.
>     If you want your backups to depend on a different reference point
>     than the previous full backup, you can use IncrLevels. An incremental
>     backup *can* miss changes. That is highly unlikely with rsync but
>     remains possible. With increasing level, chances increase. So, doing
>     *exactly* as requested makes sense.
>     As with any backup scheme, only full backups are completely reliable.

How can it miss changes? How do full backups fix it?



> 2.) Backup dependencies
>     A level 1 backup cannot depend on any other level 1 backup (because this
>     other backup can - and probably will - expire first).

This is something else I don't understand. Why does it create 
dependencies? I thought BackupPC did something functionally equivalent 
to my hand-links method. With my method, I can safely delete any daily 
backup with full confidence that the others won't be affected, as I'm 
just deleting hard links. As long as a block of data has at least one 
hard link pointing to it (ie. as long as I need it) the file will be 
safe. I thought that BackupPC did something that was functionally 
equivalent with its pooling thing.

Daniel.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/