Re: Barman versus pgBackRest

On 17/1/19 4:12 μ.μ., Jehan-Guillaume (ioguix) de Rorthais wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 13:09:18 +0200
> Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> One strong point of barman IMHO is transparently converting an incremental
>> backup to a full backup for retention purposes, so retention specification is
>> far more liberal than with pgbackrest, and configuring for incremental backup
>> does not pose any limitations to the schedule of backups. In our environment
>> our net connection to the remote site (repo) is extremely lousy, (although
>> within Switzerland if that makes any difference), so with pgbackrest a full
>> backup of our 1.3TB db, would take about 2 days ,lets say set in cron weekly
>> on sunday, (Sunday 1:00->Tuesday),  then I would have to take incr backups
>> from Wednesday->Saturday. And we would have to also take a full backup next
>> Sunday. With pgbarman we had to set : reuse_backup = link retention_policy =
>> RECOVERY WINDOW OF 14 DAYS and just perform regular backups. So for barman
>> every backup can be used as a base for the next backup, which achieves fast
>> backups and reduced disk space. In pgbackrest one has to be explicit about
>> the retention of both full backups and diff backups. it would be nice in
>> pgbackrest to only have incremental backups and let the system do the
>> necessary management (converting incremental to full) transparently and
>> asynchronously, e.g.via cron. I have read about the --repo-hardlink option. "
>> This gives the appearance that each backup is a full backup at the
>> file-system level " So could we just take a first full backup and then switch
>> permanently to incr backups?
> Funnily enough, I opened an issue a month ago about this feature. If you want
> to join the brainstorming, discuss, add some opinions and thoughts, see
> https://github.com/pgbackrest/pgbackrest/issues/644
Surely I enjoyed your convo there!
>


-- 
Achilleas Mantzios
IT DEV Lead
IT DEPT
Dynacom Tankers Mgmt