From: usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid   
      
   On 14/02/2026 22:13, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   > On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 09:29:08 +0000, Mike Scott wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > It’s your choice.   
      
   Quite. But one needs to consider side effects of any choice.   
      
   >   
   >> That said, I use 'timeshift' and 'back in time', which are front   
   >> ends for rsync.   
   >   
   > Do they give you that choice in now rsync operates?   
      
   For back-in-time, not explicitly AFAICS: the point of the links, is   
   after all, to save space. But there is an option to use checksums, which   
   would, presumably, catch a corrupted block and make a fresh copy.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Mike Scott   
   Harlow, England   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)