[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Duplicity-talk] Incremental Backups always against the last full sn
edgar . soldin
Re: [Duplicity-talk] Incremental Backups always against the last full snapshot
Sat, 17 Dec 2011 13:51:57 +0100
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
On 17.12.2011 13:06, Daniel Weigl wrote:
> Hello List,
> As far as I understand, incremental Backups save the differences against the
> last _incremental_ snapshot (or full, if no incremental is available). At
> least as I have just tested, a restore downloaded all incrementals until the
> last full one.
> Wouldn't it be good, to have a option to set duplicity to calculate all
> incrementals against the last full snapshot. I know that these means the
> incrementals will grow over the time, but on the other hand restores would be
> much faster.
> So depending on the nature of the backup'd data and restore-requriements (who
> wants to wait long while the server is restoring?), i think this might a good
> (off course only optional, and default is as it is now)
nifty idea, this could also serve to shorten a chain by making incrementals up
to the new full incremental obsolete and deletable. the m.o. you suggest is
surely an alternative for people with few changes in their backup sets.
> Is there a technical reason which might block this idea?
duplicity currently assumes that incrementals are based on the backup set
before the incremental, hence these "full-incrementals" would have to be tagged
for duplicity to detect that they are based on the full set. the backend
volumes are named like
you'd probably want to exchange full/inc in the name for these. of course the
purge routines and others will have to be modified accordingly too then.
but generally speaking, no show stopper here.
PS: what is this in your signature below?
> ++++++++[-<++++>>++++>+<<]>>++>++<<<<[- [->+<]>[->.<<+>]>>>[-[->+<]+>[<+
> +++++++[->++++++<] Daniel >-.-[-<++>]<.[-]]++<[->-<]++>[<->+++++++