Is always incremental unsuitable for object storage backend

[Tang Steven]

Hi,

From my understanding, the consolidation job in an always incremental backup will need to copy all old data and write it into new (or already purged) consolidation volumes. This is great for file-volume based backups because copying volumes locally is cheap.

However, for object storage backend, this "copy" means that the consolidation job will need to download old volumes first and re-upload new volumes to the object storage bucket. This will not only increase network transfers but also incurring data retrieval fees.

Therefore, an always incremental backup job may not be suitable for object storage back-ends.

Are my understandings  correct!

Best,

Steven Tang

[Stephan Duehr]

Hi,

yes, you are right. When using a public cloud storage service, always incremental is probably not suitable.

However, when running object storage on premises, for example a ceph cluster providing S3 compatible storage,
it still may be suitable.

Regards,
Stephan

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bareos-users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bareos-users...@googlegroups.com <mailto:bareos-users...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bareos-users/7945f3b8-65b9-4e90-83d7-18cd2fb8ac96n%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bareos-users/7945f3b8-65b9-4e90-83d7-18cd2fb8ac96n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
Stephan Dühr stepha...@bareos.com
Bareos GmbH & Co. KG Phone: +49 221-630693-90
http://www.bareos.com

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Köln | Amtsgericht Köln: HRA 29646
Komplementär: Bareos Verwaltungs-GmbH
Geschäftsführer: S. Dühr, J. Steffens, Philipp Storz