On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com> 
wrote:
>> 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-)
>
> The more significant difference may be the wall-clock time time for a
> full rsync run, which always does a full read of all the data on the
> remote side for a block checksum comparison, and may need to
> read/uncompress on the server side.   If that isn't an issue you can
> just do frequent fulls and not worry about doing rsyncs against
> incremental levels.   If it is an issue, or you want to use the least
> bandwidth possible, then you might use incremental levels and less
> frequent fulls.

Yes, in my current usage, I've only been doing fulls since figuring
out it didn't impact storage space usage. I just wanted to clarify
understanding the trade-offs between the "other flavors" for future
reference in possible other contexts.

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