From: Adam G. <mai...@we...> - 2008-09-28 11:16:13
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Raphael Alla wrote: > Based on this thread, is there any benefit in doing incremental backups > when using rsync? > > It seems to me that full backup are vastly superior to incremental ones > because: > * They do use existing data available on the server and do not use more > bandwidth than incremental backups > * A partial backup is saved if the backup fails during the transfer > * Because of the linking done, they do not use more space on the server > than incremental backups > * They are self dependant and do not rely on other backups > > Is this correct? Yes, but you missed the dis-advantages: 1) It uses more CPU on the backup server and client 2) It uses more disk IO Thus, as a result, a full backup will tend to take longer than a incremental backup. For me, an incremental can take 10 mins with a full around 1 hour (on the same machine). BTW, I think there is slightly more bandwidth used for a full than a incremental. Regards, Adam -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI32EyGyoxogrTyiURAiLoAKDW2S2zU55DWU/LKI9V/qfw1i2oGACffhcp 1wrKlC+rzE3TqPIxEzOA+XE= =OHP1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |