paul lee  wrote:
>  CG> > Even if I won't get the 100mb/s that I had THOUGHT, I'd probably see a
b
>  CG> > transfer rate anyway. Hmmmmm...
>  CG> Is it really that important or significant?  I.e. does it really
>  CG> matter if a transfer takes 15 seconds rather than 10 seconds?
>  CG>
>  CG> I run my (incremental, so rarely really huge) backups overnight via
>  CG> anacron so whether they take 10 minutes or 30 minutes doesn't matter
>  CG> at all.  As long as they complete before I wake up in the morning it's
>  CG> fine.
>
> While I suppose you're right about the bigger backups being at night, the
files
> I work with WOULD benefit from any and all transfer increases. I mean... a
lot
> of 4k movies & videos, backups of 1TB drives, etc etc.
>
When you backup a 1TB drive do you actually copy the whole 1TB?  It's
a huge waste of time and space and you can't keep so many backups.
Use some form of incremental backup and also backup *selectively*.

I just backup /home, /etc and a few other odds and ends that have
customisation or configuration in them.  There are ready made
incremental backup systems like rsnapshot which I used for a while but
then I wrote my own (quite similar but does *exactly*) what I want.
There's no need to back up /usr as you can simply reinstall everything
there.

For example on my desktop machine I keep short-term incremental
backups on a separate drive, my 1TB /home is 38% full but my
multilevel incremental backups only occupy 20% of the 1TB backup
drive. 'Multilevel' means I have hourly backups for the last 9 hours,
daily backups for the last 7 days and weekly backups for 5 weeks.

My longer term (daily) backups go to an offsite machine, a typical
incremental backup of my 38% full /home plus the other bits and pieces
only takes a couple of minutes because only the *changes* since the
day before are saved.

--
Chris Green
·

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05