On 12/9/2010 4:44 PM, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
>
>
> This also is a very logical explanation for how it can happen if the
> Backuppc linking is not working.
>
> If I recall correctly, the first time you would do a
> subsequent incremental then it should all get linked back to the pool
> since they are linked not copied to the pool *unless* the file is
> already in the pool in which case the new backup would be linked and
> the old ones would be left orphaned. Similarly, I imagine that new
> fulls would leave them stranded. Either case could explain.

I thought that was a difference between rsync/others.  Rsync works 
against a previous copy making direct links to anything that already 
exists so the pool copies are only for new data.  Other methods copy the 
whole file content over and don't bother looking at any earlier runs, 
just doing the hash and pool link or copy.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell AT gmail DOT 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/