> If you are looking for a replacement, I don't know of any that do rdiffs
> besides rdiff-backup. I think that a good incremental backup would be your
> best option.
All incrementals (that I know of) waste space when there are large
files where only a small part of the file changes. This is a
On Wednesday 07 May 2008 11:58:20 am David wrote:
> Also, I don't trust rdiff-backup as much as I do rsync. It seems a bit
> too complicated/fragile by comparison. Rsync is very robust, simple,
> and works every time. The only reason I use rdiff-backup is because of
> it's reverse delta support. I
Hi there and thanks for your reply.
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Matthew Dale Moore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I read you CLUG post. It seems like you should be able to do everything that
> you want using rdiff-backup and not using your temp work directory with rsync
> (which looks to be me
I read you CLUG post. It seems like you should be able to do everything that
you want using rdiff-backup and not using your temp work directory with rsync
(which looks to be messing things up).
Also, if you are using rdiff-backup on backup1, why do you need to preserve
file history on backup2?
Hi list.
I've posted this problem to a few other lists over the past few days
(rdiff-backup, my local LUG), but I haven't had a reply yet, so I
thought I'd try here.
Short version: rdiff-backup is using 2 GB of memory (1 GB RAM, 1 GB
swap) on one of my backup servers. I'm using the latest Etch ve
5 matches
Mail list logo
