On 21/10/14 13:38, Chris Green wrote:
[SNIP]
It was on my original shortlist a while back but I chose rsnapshot instead because rsnapshot does snapshots (i.e. each backup looks like a complete snapshot of everything you're backing up) whereas rdiff-backup does 'masters' plus diffs over a period.
This is a *big* distinction IMHO. With rdiff-backup you have to reconstruct any file you want to restore unless it happens to be unchanged since the last 'master' backup. Also as I understand how rdiff-backup works the diffs get more and more 'distant' as you make more and more backups.
With rsnapshot (or my more recent home-made system) hard links are used to save space where files haven't changed so every backup you make is a complete set of files, you can just copy the file back from the backup you select, no reconstruction needed.
I much prefer snapshots as they seem to me much safer and more robust.
So... Why ask about incrementals in the subject of the OP if you've already decided to use snapshots only?
The advantage of incrementals is the space saved. And, of course, you can always take an annual/quarterly/monthly/whatever snapshot of the incrementals, archive it to release space and then start again... In fact, that's a basic requirement for sensible file management.
Anyway, whatever.
Cheers, Laurie.