|
From: | Kenneth Loafman |
Subject: | Re: [Duplicity-talk] Seeding a remote backup |
Date: | Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:11:48 -0500 |
On 14.06.2012 17:07, Andrew Kohlsmith (mailing lists account) wrote:actually duplicity just plain stupid checks the backend, sees no incrementals and naturally creates the first based on the latest full.
> On 2012-06-14, at 11:02 AM, address@hidden wrote:
>> that's not what i suggested:
>> meant was do new incrementals against the old full to effectively shorten the chain artificially hence minimizing the chance of having a defect volume killing backups after it.
>
> Oh I understand now; I didn't think you could do that and have Duplicity automatically figure that out. That's a very interesting workaround!
yeah it would.
>> anyway, this is a workaround and no solution of course. also it does not protect you from the full getting corrupted, so you additionally need that as a copy in a safe place.
>
> It'd be nice if you could tell Duplicity to do something to that effect… incremental-chain-length or some such…
>
that would be like introducing a new type of incremental, root-incremental or base-incremental which is always based on the full before it, ignoring the incrementals inbetween.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |