[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Duplicity-talk] long term incrementals and scalability question

From: edgar . soldin
Subject: Re: [Duplicity-talk] long term incrementals and scalability question
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:24:46 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5

On 16.04.2013 18:05, Elvar wrote:
> I am currently using Duplicity to make backups of a fast growing email 
> archive solution. I have Duplicity backing the data up via FTP to an offsite 
> server. I performed the initial full backup and have been doing incrementals 
> since. I'm using 250M volumes to try and cut down on the number of files on 
> the remote server. The question I have is, is this a viable long term method 
> I'm using? Performing semi routine full backups is not an option due to how 
> long they take and the amount of data that has to be transferred.

no. currently when one signature/volume becomes corrupt all following backups 
become unusable as well. so you either

1. have to do full on a regular schedule
2. doing new backups against an old full by moving incrementals manually 
somewhere else on the backend (and back if you want to restore a backup 
contained in them). NOTE: this is a hack and not advised, but the only way 
currently to "rebase" incrementals.

also, in #2 you'd assume that your full will never get corrupted, which is 
probably not very clever either.


reply via email to

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