BackupPC-users

Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc incremental taking up a lot of bandwidth with no additional changes

2012-01-20 13:04:20
Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc incremental taking up a lot of bandwidth with no additional changes
From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com>
To: "General list for user discussion, questions and support" <backuppc-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:02:55 -0600
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 11:16 AM, smallpox <smallpox AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> understood, there arent a lot of files currently, nothing has changed
> since day 1.
>
> its only 400 mb.
>
> if i have level 2, it does incremental in 10 seconds, why does that
> happen? level 1 takes 10 min

That doesn't make much sense to me for an rsync type backup.  I would
expect the level2 to have to do more work server-side to merge the
directory info of the prior full and incremental.  A level0 (full)
should take much longer to read all the data but not much more
bandwidth to exchange the block checksums.     You might improve your
overall timing if you can split the runs into several top level
directories, using different host entries with a ClientNameAlias
pointing back to the same host.  That would let you overlap runs and
skew the days when fulls happen.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
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/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>