Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:00:22 +0100 From: j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org> To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dump levels/incremental backups Message-ID: <20001002140022.A97468@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> In-Reply-To: <20000929110713.A8019@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com>; from cjclark@reflexnet.net on Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 11:07:13AM -0700 References: <20000929033448.A59083@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20000928200709.J81242@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com> <20000929140633.A63505@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20000929110713.A8019@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
| 3 2 5 4 7 6 <snip> | There must be an easy way to express this as the inverted logic of how | a dump decides if a file is to be included, but I can't come up with | it right now. So you work backwards, taking dump levels in only descending order. I saw the explanation of tape rotation based on the Towers of Hanoi, and while they are related, there does not seem to be a direct correlation between the rotation method and the incremental series. I guess I'm just not seeing it. But I *do* get that it allovs you to balance size of backups and restoration effort. I still think my strategy works, where you work back taking every other day. jcm -- "I drank WHAT ?!" - Socrates To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001002140022.A97468>