tags 572523 + moreinfo thanks Hi,
Olivier Berger wrote (04 Mar 2010 17:41:44 GMT) : > I think that the current way the duplicity handler works can lead to > filling the disks, in a dangerous way. I still need to be convinced of it, please read on. > Currently, with incremental mode selected for duplicity, it will > perform endless incremental backups as there's no use > of --full-if-older-than to perform a full backup every now and then. You are right. > So, the keep settings doesn't seem to apply, if I understand it > correctly, as nothing can be removed from a list of incremental > backups without a full backup happening in between. The keep settings are here to automatically cleanup old backup sets after a manual full backup has been performed by the admin. backupninja as a whole quite lacks documentation. > This leads to having a duplicity cache grow unlimited, unless > a manual duplicity full backup is performed by the admin. What local cache are you talking of? AFAIK, duplicity maintains no local cache unless the --archive-dir option is used, which is not the case in the duplicity handler (this feature has been requested on #535993, BTW). I just made a test run of Lenny's duplicity, and no such thing as /root/.cache/duplicity can be found. Bye, -- intrigeri <intrig...@boum.org> | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr-fingerprint.asc | If you must label the absolute, use it's proper name: Temporary. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
