Re: [BackupPC-users] Still unable to "resume" a partial backup

also sprach Adam Goryachev <mailinglists AT websitemanagers.com DOT au> 
[2016-08-04 15:47 +0200]:
> On 4/08/2016 23:43, martin f krafft wrote:
> > 3) Ensure that you can backup any file within the ClientTimeout,
> > Is this necessary? Isn't ClientTimeout about killing the connection
> > after a period of time without any traffic?
> Almost, but the timer is only updated after each file has been 
> transferred, not after each chunk/byte of a file.

Oh, that actually explains *a lot*. Thanks. I'll just push the value
to two weeks now ;)

> It should work as you said, but if you never have enough time to
> transfer the second file, then you won't actually proceed.
> BackupPC will still check every file "before" the second file in
> case there have been changes there, but ultimately, if the second
> file is too big to transfer within the allotted time, then it
> can't succeed.

I do wonder if it woulnd't make sense to

  (a) randomise the order of files
  (b) update partial backups

for the combination of those two will mean that over time, even
a partial backup will become more and more useful, don't you think?

-- 
@martinkrafft | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/
 
"a fundamentalist is someone who hates sin more than he loves virtue."
                                                   -- john h. schaar
 
spamtraps: madduck.bogus AT madduck DOT net

digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital GPG signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
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/