On 02/14/2016 03:02 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Tue, 02/09 19:48, John Snow wrote:
>> - Reading an entire drive to populate a bitmap with the understanding
>> that an incremental backup is soon to follow is inefficient if the drive
>> is more than just a little dirty: it may have been quicker to ju
On Tue, 02/09 19:48, John Snow wrote:
> - Reading an entire drive to populate a bitmap with the understanding
> that an incremental backup is soon to follow is inefficient if the drive
> is more than just a little dirty: it may have been quicker to just
> create a new full backup and bitmap.
Above
The thought was raised that it might be useful to create a "diff"
command for bitmaps that allow us to populate a dirty bitmap based on
the difference between a currently loaded disk image and some
point-in-time stored on disk (an earlier full backup, incremental
backup, etc).
I originally voiced
