Re: [Duplicity-talk] are periodic full backups necessary?

[Peter Schuller]

> I'm not sure what you mean by "most recent and backward diffs".  Is that
> the same as a differential backup?  Or is it the same as an incremental
> based on the previous full backup?

rdiff-backup maintains an up-to-date mirror (essentially what you would get 
with rsync, but with extra meta data) plus reverse diffs. So you perform one 
initial backup that transfers all the data, and then  never ever do it again, 
maintaining some number of reverse diffs back in time.

Essentially you have a rolling window (in time) of increments, with the 
only "full copy" being the up-to-date version rather than the oldest version.

> The consequences, as Peter pointed out, are increased recovery times.  A

I actually misread the OP. My comments were referring to the thought of making 
duplicity behave like rdiff-backup, rather than using duplicity in a way 
where you never bother making another full backup and just do increments 
(presumably until you run out of disk).

-- 
/ Peter Schuller

PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <address@hidden>'
Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to address@hidden
E-Mail: address@hidden Web: http://www.scode.org

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.