From: usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid   
      
   On 13/02/2026 22:03, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   > On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 13:34:42 -0500, Alan K. wrote:   
   >   
   >> Acronis can do incremental, but I don't really need it for that.   
   >   
   > The nice thing about rsync is, its --link-dest option lets you create   
   > incremental backups that look like full backups for restoration   
   > purposes. It saves space by not making additional copies of files that   
   > haven’t changed, but because standard POSIX/*nix filesystems allow the   
   > same file to be linked into multiple directories, that same file can   
   > appear in multiple snapshots taken at different times, and restored   
   > from any of them.   
      
   That's a mixed blessing. If the single set of blocks in the backup gets   
   corrupted, all "copies" are affected. Unlike a normal backup.   
      
   That said, I use 'timeshift' and 'back in time', which are front ends   
   for rsync. Seems to work well enough, although some care over mailbox   
   backup is warranted.   
      
   --   
   Mike Scott   
   Harlow, England   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)