You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 10, 2022. It is now read-only.
Every time script creates an incremental backup, it use last full backup as base, so you are duplicating a lot of incremental backups.
May be it is not wrong, so my question is:
Are you doing it because you prefer duplicate data, but have last hot incremental ready to restore?
Another solution is create a incremental for last incremental, it will save resources but if you have 23 incremental and number 8 fails, you can not restore after that. If you have small dbs it's ok, but if you have big dbs with intensive IO and create an incremental backup every hour, backup 20,21 and 23 (for example) takes similar time than full backup.
Thanks.
Best Regards.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think it's a good strategy, that you don't need to use many incremental backups to restore the backup,then it saves hours. But on the other side, it takes more hard disk spaces.
Hello,
Every time script creates an incremental backup, it use last full backup as base, so you are duplicating a lot of incremental backups.
May be it is not wrong, so my question is:
Are you doing it because you prefer duplicate data, but have last hot incremental ready to restore?
Another solution is create a incremental for last incremental, it will save resources but if you have 23 incremental and number 8 fails, you can not restore after that. If you have small dbs it's ok, but if you have big dbs with intensive IO and create an incremental backup every hour, backup 20,21 and 23 (for example) takes similar time than full backup.
Thanks.
Best Regards.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: