Re: [Duplicity-talk] Some questions from a new user

[Kenneth Loafman]

Richard Scott wrote:
>>> The second question I'm having is that I have about 40GB of personal
>>> files I'm backing up. A lot of the tutorials online are saying that I 
>>> should do a full backup
>>> every month or so, but if that means transferring 40GB over my network 
>>> every month, then
>>> duplicity won't work out for me. Is there a way that I can keep a month's 
>>> worth of backups around
>>> without ever having to do a full backup, and without backups filling my  
>>> remote server's HD?
>> You can go longer than a month without doing a full backup.  It's a
>> matter of risk tradeoff -- the more full backups you have, the more 
>> protected you are if any volume
>> "goes bad" (i.e. hard drive problem)
>> or is deleted.  But they take up more space.
> 
> Hi, i've an alternative idea on this "long chain" backup problem...
> 
> I too don't really want to have to do a full backup each month. However I 
> also don't need the
> ability to be able to restore a file from x days ago. I'm backing up my email 
> server so just
> having an off site, secure copy is good enough for me.
> 
> Is there a way to delete the available incrementals and just leave the last 
> known full backup on
> the remote storage? This way my next incremental would be the difference 
> between today and the
> full backup x days/weeks/months/years ago. This way we'd a) have a short 
> backup chain and b) not
> need to re-upload the full backup each time we do a full backup?
> 
> I know we have the "remove-all-but-n-full" option, but from what I understand 
> this also keeps any
> associated incremental sets.

That's not such a bad idea at all.  If you deleted all of the
incremental files younger than the backup, the next incremental run
would be, in effect, a differential.

...Thanks,
...Ken

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature