+- Backup Education (https://backup.education)
+-- Forum: Hyper-V (https://backup.education/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: Questions (https://backup.education/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: What are the differences between full differential and incremental backups in Hyper-V? (/showthread.php?tid=63)
What are the differences between full differential and incremental backups in Hyper-V? - savas - 01-09-2019
When it comes to backing up virtual machines in Hyper-V, you've probably heard about full, differential, and incremental backups. Each type has its own approach and understanding these differences can be really helpful in managing your data without driving yourself crazy.
Let's start with full backups. A full backup is essentially a complete snapshot of the virtual machine at a specific point in time. Think of it like taking a picture of everything—every file, every setting, all stored data—so you have an exact replica. The really nice thing about full backups is that they are straightforward to restore since everything you need is packaged into one nice, neat file. However, the downside is that they can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. If you’ve got a large VM, it could take quite a while to back up, and you'll need a lot of storage space for all those backup files if you're doing them frequently.
Next up is the differential backup. Imagine that you already took that full backup, and now it’s time to make it a bit easier on yourself. A differential backup only saves the changes made since the last full backup. So, if you had a full backup last Friday and you are doing a differential backup today, it will only save the files that have been added or modified since that Friday. This method is much faster and uses way less storage space compared to the full backup. When it comes time to restore, you first restore the full backup and then apply the most recent differential backup. It's relatively easy to manage, but over time, as you keep taking more differential backups, they can become larger and larger, reflecting all those changes since the last full backup.
Then we have incremental backups, which are kind of the sneaky little cousins of the differential backups. With incremental backups, you're only saving the changes made since the last backup, whether that was a full backup or another incremental. So, if you did a full backup last Friday and then an incremental backup on Saturday, you’d save the changes made up until Saturday. If you did another incremental on Sunday, it would only save the changes made since Saturday. The biggest perk here is that these backups are typically the quickest to create and consume the least space because you’re only saving those new changes each time. However, the catch is that during a restore, you’ll need to recover the last full backup and then follow up with every subsequent incremental backup in order. If you have to restore something and you’re missing just one incremental, it can throw a wrench into the whole process.
In practical terms, if you want comprehensive backups and aren’t too worried about storage or time, you might stick with full backups. For more efficient storage and quicker backups without compromising on too much recovery speed, differential backups could be your go-to. On the other hand, if you want the fastest backup process and are okay with occasionally juggling those files when restoring, then incremental backups might be the way to go. It all boils down to balancing your needs for speed, storage, and ease of recovery.
I hope my post was useful. Are you new to Hyper-V and do you have a good Hyper-V backup solution? See my other post