William Nagel wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2005, at 4:19 PM, Dirk Schenkewitz wrote:
>
>> (Sorry, I forgot again *slaps self resends to the list*)
>
>
> Heh. I did the same thing. :-)
:-)
> On Jun 21, 2005, at 4:12 PM, Dirk Schenkewitz wrote:
>
>>
>>> My backup process actually uses both. I use a hotcopy to create a
>>> backup of the entire repository to an onsite backup server, and use
>>> an incremental dump to send all of the changes made since the last
>>> backup to an offsite backup server.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, why incremental? That means you must keep all previous incremental
>> dumps. Why not full dumps every time and replace/overwrite the previous
>> ones? (Except you burn them on CD every time you have enough data.)
>>
>
> You'll notice that I said it goes to an offsite backup server. Maybe I
> wasn't clear that the data is sent to the offsite server over a
> network. Sending the entire repository every night would be
> prohibitive, but sending only the day's changes is very reasonable
> (given the average daily changes on our repository).
Yes it is - I could have thought of that myself.
> Since n
> incremental dumps aren't appreciatively larger in totality than a
> single all-encompassing dump it really isn't a big deal to keep all of
> the incremental dumps around.
>
> If you really see keeping the incremental dumps around as a problem,
> though, one solution would be to have the backup server automatically
> load the dumps into a local repository as it gets them. Then that
> reconstructed repository could be backed up (or dumped to one big dump
> file).
Maybe transferring the big file via rsync could spare some bandwidth...
> -Bill
Thanks Again
Dirk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jun 22 10:36:23 2005