On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:03 AM Radosław Korzeniewski < rados...@korzeniewski.net> wrote:
> Hello, > > śr., 12 lut 2020 o 00:10 David Brodbeck <brodb...@math.ucsb.edu> > napisał(a): > >> One example of a situation where this actually makes sense is if your >> full backups take a lot longer than your incrementals. For example, I have >> some workstations where a full takes three days, but an incremental takes >> only a few minutes. I'd rather have the incremental run every day (and >> occasionally get skipped when a full backup is running) than limit myself >> to only one backup every three days. >> > > In my very, very, very humble opinion it does not make sense and you > design you backup policy incorrectly. When your policy is to make backup > every day then you should not allow for full backup to take more time. In > such case I would recommend to implement VirtualFull which will solve all > your issues. > That is what I eventually did, although VirtualFull has its own issues and feels more fragile to me, e.g. if corruption slips into one incremental than it will propagate forward from that point without any fresh full backup to correct it. It's definitely a more efficient use of both storage space and time, though. -- David Brodbeck System Administrator, Department of Mathematics University of California, Santa Barbara
_______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
