Re: [Duplicity-talk] Quick Question: full and remove-older-than

[Damon Timm]

Thanks for your responses (follow-up below).

On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Ian Barton <address@hidden> wrote:
> The longer the incremental chain, the more likely it is that some random
> corruption will happen. It's also a pain if the file you want to restore is
> near the end of a very long chain of incrementals.

Are there any "best practice" suggestions for when it comes to running
a full backup, then?  Or is it just personal preference?

Or, maybe, should each incremental backup be verified and then redone
if the verify fails?

On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Richard Scott <address@hidden> wrote:
> I don't know if my way is correct, but so far it works for me ;-) I do a 
> "remove-all-but-n-full 1
> --force" when doing a full backup each Sunday morning. That seems to work for 
> me as I don't need
> historical backups so a weekly full backup is enough for me to restore my 
> data should I need to.

That seems to make sense -- could do a weekly (or monthly) full backup
followed by the "remove-all-but-n-full" to leave however many full
backups I chose.  Thanks for that tip.

I guess I have to decide if I really even need more than one full
backup --> I already do incremental backups to an external storage
device ... am using duplicity as an off-site safety net, so keeping
all versions of the file isn't quite as critical, I think.  But I will
probably wait and see how things go in terms of storage space with
regular full backups thrown into the mix.

Thanks again for all your input.

Damon