Re: [BackupPC-users] Long: How BackupPC handles pooling, and how transfer methods affect bandwidth usage

[Les M. <le...@fu...>]

Timothy J. Massey wrote:
> 
> As a start, how about a utility that simply clones one host to another 
> using only the pc/host directory tree, and assumes that none of the 
> source files are in the pool, just like it would during a brand-new 
> rsync backup? 

That would be better than nothing, but if you have multiple full runs 
that you want to keep you'll have to transfer a lot of duplicates that 
could probably be avoided.

 > In reality, I'm still talking about a
> custom BackupPC client, but instead of targeting the host, I'm targeting 
> a much more confined target:  BackupPC servers.  How about BackupPC 
> servers that can replicate their data to each other in remote locations? 
>  A local BackupPC server is set up in the default way:  incrementals are 
> performed daily, fulls are performed weekly.  In addition, this server 
> also replicates all of its backups once a week to a remote BackupPC 
> server, which integrates them into its pool.
 >
> There are a lot of advantages to this.  It can take advantage of pooling 
> *before* an item is sent.

But what is the advantage over just letting the remote server make its 
run directly against the same targets?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     le...@fu...