duplicity-team team mailing list archive

[edso <question133863@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Question #133863 on Duplicity changed:
https://answers.launchpad.net/duplicity/+question/133863

    Status: Open => Answered

edso proposed the following answer:
On 13.11.2010 13:26, Patrick Allemann wrote:
> Question #133863 on Duplicity changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/duplicity/+question/133863
> 
> Patrick Allemann posted a new comment:
> Hi ede,
> 
> yeah - I did think of that workaround but I would still be at risk as
> rsync would also upload the files sequentially. I would have a backup on

what do you do when duplicity fails because your line chokes? Restart
the full? And if it chokes again? Restart again? Recent duplicity is
supposed to resume, but personally I wouldn't count on it for production
usage.

The local storage workaround results in duplicity quickly finishing
backups. This way you separate the backup creation from the upload
process. You separate it from the bottleneck that your line is.

> my usb-disk but it still would not be stored off-site in case of a
> catastrophic event.

This way you can in parallel to your ongoing new full upload, upload the much smaller incremental backup of the old chain. They should be much smaller of course, so they can be transferred within a day despite your other upload(s). How much daily change do you generate?
 
> As far as I got the concept, a incremental backup alsways is connected
> to a backup chain which starts with a full backup. I don't yet see why
> my incremental backups could be added to last months backup chain as
> long as this months full backup is not finished yet. The "new-recent-
> fullbackup" is valid starting the date it finished I guess. 

Right. Duplicity looks what is latest in the repository and acts accordingly. That's why i wrote 'new folder'. Reread my last comment ;).
A new folder is a new empty repository, hence the old backup chain in the old repository can be incrementally extended as you like.

>Can't I
> force duplicity to connect to the old backup chain? In duply you have
> the possibility to force the process into full or incremental - but it

duply only simplifies duplicity. You can of course force duplicity to
full or incr (if a full already exists) without duply.

> gets messed up with the cached files if there are two running processes.
> 

yes. Duplicity currently expects that there is only one instance running
per repository.

..ede/duply.net

-- 
You received this question notification because you are a member of
duplicity-team, which is an answer contact for Duplicity.