Has the forum ever reached a consensus on the optimum remote volume size, on a LAN?
Secondary question: if I change an existing backup’s remote volume size, will the two sizes coexist until retention rules age the old ones out? Or will the whole backup get rewritten at the next run?
I don’t think there is a simple answer because it depends on multiple factors. Larger volume sizes should be more efficient to transfer to the back end (in theory), but they are less efficient when restoring. This is because volumes have to be recalled in whole when doing a restore, and larger volumes will contain more blocks unrelated to what you’re restoring. Also larger blocks maybe less efficient when compacting as there is more data to process.
Personally I use the default volume size (50MiB) for everything, cloud or LAN backups. The only time you are REQUIRED to increase it is when using a back end that has a limit on file count.
Regarding your second question, the two volume sizes will coexist until data is aged off or they get repackaged (like during a compaction). If you have a lot of data that never changes on your source system, you may find the older volume size packages stay there indefinitely.
one note on that is I think I’ve seen compact get busy on volume size increase because there’s no record of what size the target was at original volume creation, so a size increase makes old volumes look thinly filled.
Thanks for this. I think I will take an opportunity for a “start-over”, preserving the old backup offline, rather than mingle.