https://forums.qrecall.com/posts/list/2.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net
Would the processing reduction gained by using smaller archives make it worthwhile to have separate archives for different groups of files, particularly for groups of files that I might want to update less frequently?

Capture compression should reduce the amount of backup data to be transmitted, but would it also impose additional interchanges between qrecall and the archive that would negate these savings?

Would merging and other management processes be inordinately time-consuming over the internet?

Do you have any other thought pro or con about using qrecall over the internet?

Ralph]]> https://forums.qrecall.com/posts/preList/138/576.page https://forums.qrecall.com/posts/preList/138/576.page GMT Online storage thread. But the short version is this: MobileMe is based on WebDAV which does not play well with QRecall.

[quote]Would the processing reduction gained by using smaller archives make it worthwhile to have separate archives for different groups of files, particularly for groups of files that I might want to update less frequently?[/quote]Probably not. There's not much overhead associated with the data in an archive that [i]isn't[/i] being updated. The overhead of managing multiple archives probably outweighs the overhead of a lot of data that doesn't get updated that often.

[quote]Capture compression should reduce the amount of backup data to be transmitted, but would it also impose additional interchanges between qrecall and the archive that would negate these savings?[/quote]Compress doesn't involve any additional communications. Overall, less data is transferred to a compressed archive than an uncompressed one. The penalty for compressing an archive is computational: Every time data is accessed from the archive it has be be decompressed and all new data has to be compressed. That just takes a lot of additional CPU cycles.

[quote]Would merging and other management processes be inordinately time-consuming over the internet?[/quote]Yes. The best strategy would be to avoid them, or run them very infrequently (like once a month), if your only connection to the archive was over a slow communications link.

[quote]Do you have any other thought pro or con about using qrecall over the internet?[/quote]If the file server you are storing the archive on is using a "real" remote file system protocol (like an AppleShare server) then you'll probably be OK capturing a modest amount of data and scheduling infrequent merge and capture actions.

However, if you are using any WebDAV based service (MobileMe, Amazon SSS, AOL, ...) then it's impractical to use QRecall on the remote archive directly. Instead, consider getting a small USB thumb drive or small external drive and performing your captures to that. Once a week, or once a month, upload the archive to your off-site data store.]]> https://forums.qrecall.com/posts/preList/138/577.page https://forums.qrecall.com/posts/preList/138/577.page GMT
Ralph]]> https://forums.qrecall.com/posts/preList/138/580.page https://forums.qrecall.com/posts/preList/138/580.page GMT