> The previous full run is used as the comparison unless you have
> configured incremental levels.   But, why not just do more frequent full
> runs to keep the base more current?  Fulls take longer in elapsed time
> because the remote files are all read for comparison, but they don't use
> a lot more bandwidth than incrementals.
>
> --
>   Les Mikesell

hey Les, thanks for your comments.

I can see on the list this subject is a common one so sorry for you
having to repeat yourself. I have had a good read, I believe the
following is correct...

-for rsyncd, fulls and incrementals are the same other than the fact
that full takes longer checking all files. The reason full is the same
is due to it will not transfer any files in the pool that are the
same, hence it only transfers changes... just like incrementals
-if have 1 full and 7 incrementals, the next full will hard-link back
to any full and incremental backups it needs to use. Therefore not all
files will be transferred again
-when an old backup comes up to expire, I guess any files that are not
hard linked are deleted - not all of them

You said "why not just do more frequent full runs to keep the base
more current?" - why is this different than incremental? Full and
incremental to me just sound more logical and the extra time on the
client to do the processing of a full I can schedule for a weekend.

thank you for your time making this clear for me

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
and start using them to simplify application deployment and
accelerate your shift to cloud computing
http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev
_______________________________________________
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/