[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Duplicity-talk] Quick Question: full and remove-older-than

From: Damon Timm
Subject: Re: [Duplicity-talk] Quick Question: full and remove-older-than
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:27:38 -0500

Thanks for your responses (follow-up below).

On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Ian Barton <address@hidden> wrote:
> The longer the incremental chain, the more likely it is that some random
> corruption will happen. It's also a pain if the file you want to restore is
> near the end of a very long chain of incrementals.

Are there any "best practice" suggestions for when it comes to running
a full backup, then?  Or is it just personal preference?

Or, maybe, should each incremental backup be verified and then redone
if the verify fails?

On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Richard Scott <address@hidden> wrote:
> I don't know if my way is correct, but so far it works for me ;-) I do a 
> "remove-all-but-n-full 1
> --force" when doing a full backup each Sunday morning. That seems to work for 
> me as I don't need
> historical backups so a weekly full backup is enough for me to restore my 
> data should I need to.

That seems to make sense -- could do a weekly (or monthly) full backup
followed by the "remove-all-but-n-full" to leave however many full
backups I chose.  Thanks for that tip.

I guess I have to decide if I really even need more than one full
backup --> I already do incremental backups to an external storage
device ... am using duplicity as an off-site safety net, so keeping
all versions of the file isn't quite as critical, I think.  But I will
probably wait and see how things go in terms of storage space with
regular full backups thrown into the mix.

Thanks again for all your input.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]