Re: [Duplicity-talk] Seeding a remote backup

[edgar . soldin]

On 14.06.2012 17:07, Andrew Kohlsmith (mailing lists account) wrote:
> On 2012-06-14, at 11:02 AM, address@hidden wrote:
>> that's not what i suggested:
>> meant was do new incrementals against the old full to effectively shorten 
>> the chain artificially hence minimizing the chance of having a defect volume 
>> killing backups after it.
> 
> Oh I understand now; I didn't think you could do that and have Duplicity 
> automatically figure that out. That's a very interesting workaround!

actually duplicity just plain stupid checks the backend, sees no incrementals 
and naturally creates the first based on the latest full.

>> anyway, this is a workaround and no solution of course. also it does not 
>> protect you from the full getting corrupted, so you additionally need that 
>> as a copy in a safe place.
> 
> It'd be nice if you could tell Duplicity to do something to that effect… 
> incremental-chain-length or some such…
> 

yeah it would.

that would be like introducing a new type of incremental, root-incremental or 
base-incremental which is always based on the full before it, ignoring the 
incrementals inbetween.

..ede/duply.net