On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com> 
wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 6:03 PM,  <hansbkk AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>>  it only makes sense to compare to the newest one, since in BPCs storage 
>> model there isn't any benefit to distinguish between "incremental" vs 
>> "differential" sets.

> The distinction is between the contents of the file and the directory
> entries pointing to it.   The contents of hardlinked files are all the
> same, but rsync doesn't know anything about the hashed filenames for
> the pool links.   It strictly follows the directory tree established
> by the last full run (by default).   The concept of incremental vs.
> differential sort-of relates to the 'incremental level" setting that
> permits the comparison to merge in previous incrementals back to the
> last full, finding the latest version of each file .   That involves a
> trade-off of more server side work traversing multiple directory trees
> vs. likely transferring less changed data.

Thanks Les. So my snip above does hold when trying to conserve
bandwidth (say over a WAN), but at the potential cost of increasing
the time the backup session requires. In a high-speed local
environment, processing time can be reduced by always using
"differential" between fulls (by not enabling the "incremental"
option).

This only becomes a question if I got it wrong 8-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Write once. Port to many.
Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create 
new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the 
Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
_______________________________________________
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/