tedd wrote:

> There is a general back-up philosophy that everything should be backed 
> up, like what Retrospect does. So, the users of Retrospect, and the 
> like, continue to make ever increasing back-ups. First backup A, and 
> then backup B (A + B), and then backup C (A + B + C) and so on. Each 
> backup adds another entire back-up of the data that was present that 
> day/week/month/whatever to the backup data set.
> 
> DiskFit, on the other hand, backed up only what was changed. So, one 
> could keep the same back-up medium set and it's size (number of mediums) 
> only changed when you added something. A DiskFit backup restore would 
> restore your computer to what it was when last you backed up. While 
> Retrospect could restore your computer to what it was since you first 
> started doing backups and everything in between. Redundancy way beyond 
> my needs.

My Retrospects have always (since 1991) performed incremental backups as 
the typical default backup strategy.

On restore, you can pick individual files from anywhere in the change 
history, or you can restore the volume as it existed at any point in the 
change history. No file is backed up twice. It does this by keeping 
track of each file backed up, not by redundancy.

PB