Christoph Anton Mitterer

I also stumbled over this… I'm just not sure whether preserve the last `n` snapshots as a functionality would really solve the issue (at least not in all cases): Consider...

If that's the case, the warning at the bottom of https://github.com/digint/btrbk#example-encrypted-backup-to-non-btrfs-target would likely also be obsolete? Also the line: > There is currently no support for rotation of incremental backups:...

@sbrudenell I've just tried the above, but in my setup, `btrbk` does **not** delete old ancestors: ``` ACTION HOST SUBVOLUME SCHEME REASON - example.org /var/local/lcg-backup/data/btrbk/data.20221112T021654+0100.btrfs 7h preserve forced: parent of...

I tried to solve this now, by having two sets of systemd timers and services: The ususal `btrbk.timer`/`btrbk.service` (which runs in the test example every 4th hour and makes a...

These are the `.info` sidecars... AFAICS, the chain should be correct, and restarts whenever there had been a full send: ``` -e -n #btrbk-v0.27.1 #Do not edit this file TYPE=raw...

@digint Once the above would work... what are your general plans on how this should be ultimately handled in `btrbk`? 1. Will it always be that people have to set...

I tried the same with version 0.32.5, but even with changes to `incremental_prefs` ... it never seems to delete any chains that are completely obsolete (i.e. all of he backups...

😍 Will test it tonight. > Because of this, implementing any configurable trigger for forcing non-incremental backups (e.g. monthly, or after N incremental) is hard to implement and somehow counter-intuitive,...

> Will test it tonight. Apart from the findings I've reported in some other issues (which were however likely anyway not really directly related to this), it seems to run...

Still looks good. But there may be some more complications as with incremental dumps in mind... things get actually quite tricky: Let's assume an example where we just have retention...