Re: strategy to prove backups are good -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: strategy to prove backups are good
From: Patrik Schindler <poc@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 00:35:27 +0200
List-archive: <https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@lists.midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Hello Jim,

Am 21.04.2025 um 21:41 schrieb Jim Oberholtzer <midrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

Cumulative vs. incremental makes a big difference. The terminology (potentially) gets in the way.

Cumulative is all the changes since the last full save, so to restore I need the full, then the last cumulative.

Hm. I know this as "differential".

Incremental I would need the full save, then every incremental since then, validating your point.

So if it’s a cumulative, no worries.

Depends.

You do a full save on Sunday,
then you create a source member somewhere on Monday, which is saved Tuesday night.
At Thursday you decide to scrap it and delete the member.
Next Wednesday you want it back. But the Tuesday backup has already been expired…

:wq! PoC

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: strategy to prove backups are good , nelsonp

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.