On 9/9/2010 11:20 AM, RC wrote:
> RC<cooleyr<at>  gmail.com>  writes:
>
>> However, I'm just getting started with BackupPC myself, so I'm not sure if
>> BackupPC properly understands that rsync incrementals are just as good as 
>> full
>> backups, and that it can therefore expire the most recent "full" even though 
>> no
>> new "full" backup has been performed.
>
> In fact it is smart enough:
>
> "If filling of incremental dumps is off the oldest backup always has to be a
> full (ie: filled) dump."
>
> Unfortunately, filling is disabled by default:
>
> "Prior to v1.03 all incremental backups were filled. In v1.4.0 and later the
> default is off."
>
> And worse, the developers have depreciated, and threatened to eliminate, this
> EXTREMELY useful and important option:

Filling backups will greatly increase the number of hardlinks in the 
system which may or may not have adverse effects for you.

> "It's likely the filling option will be removed from future versions"
>
> If that happens, I'll have to maintain a set of patches, or continue using old
> versions.  Honestly, the overhead from filling incrementals is quite small, 
> and
> the benefits are huge.

Why not just run fulls more often?  If you need to fiddle with your own 
patches, you might try something that knocks out the forced 
'--ignore-times' option on full runs which is the main thing different 
about the time it takes for a full to complete.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by:

Show off your parallel programming skills.
Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd
_______________________________________________
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/