Re: [Duplicity-talk] duplicity and partial rsync transfers

[edgar . soldin]

Eliot Moss <address@hidden> schrieb:

>On 8/30/2011 8:49 AM, Chris Poole wrote:
>> I'd agree with the above, and suggest that you backup to a local
>drive first,
>> and then use rsync or whatever tool you want to send those files to
>your remote
>> backup destination.
>>
>> I do this and find that I can max my upload bandwidth by doing the
>following:
>>
>>      cd local_backup_dir
>>      find . -name '*.gpg' -print0 | xargs -0I{} -n1 -P8 rsync {}
>> remote_backup_dir
>>
>> (basically you just do several uploads at once).
>
>Thank you, Chris -- that's a reasonable idea if I end up having enough
>space. I may not, given I am doing a full backup of a lot of the stuff
>on my laptop -- it may not have the space.  (If I am willing to attach
>a separate disk to hold the .gpg files while I am doing this, I might
>be able to do it.)
>
>What some respondents are not realizing (because I probably did not
>make it clear), I am not necessarily talking about the case where
>duplicity is run a second (or third, or whatever) time, but when the
>rsync backend has a network problem and tries to send the *same*
>volume file again.

crystal clear to me.

>--partial would be very reasonable in such a case.

Not all backends support resuming in protocol so it might proof more complex to 
implement....  Ede / duply.net

>
>Best -- Eliot
>
>_______________________________________________
>Duplicity-talk mailing list
>address@hidden
>https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk