[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Duplicity-talk] are periodic full backups necessary?
From: |
Peter Schuller |
Subject: |
Re: [Duplicity-talk] are periodic full backups necessary? |
Date: |
Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:34:53 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) |
> Using rsync to sync the local and remote copies was a problem. Since the TC
> container file size didn't change I needed to use an extra rsync switch
> which generated a checksum of the files so rsync could work out what had
> changed. With large containers (4GB) this was very slow.
At least rsync as it appeared two-three years ago would not only be
slow, but even slow to the point of not being usable at all, for even
larger files in the 100 GB range. IIRC something to do with certain
parameters used when applying the rsync algo (was a while ago).
My previous post assumed direct I/O to the remote drive; with a local
copy things become simpler, though as you indicate above it does not
necessarily solve all problems.
--
/ 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
pgpxaDjOGg6Tt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [Duplicity-talk] are periodic full backups necessary?, Peter Schuller, 2008/01/20
Re: [Duplicity-talk] are periodic full backups necessary?, Gabriel Ambuehl, 2008/01/20
Re: [Duplicity-talk] are periodic full backups necessary?, Kenneth Loafman, 2008/01/20