A reverse-delta backup strategy – obvious idea or bad idea?
The idea is:
The latest backup (timestamped) always contains a full copy of the current source state.
Any previous backups are stored as deltas: files that were deleted or modified compared to the next (newer) version.
There are no version numbers — just timestamps. New versions can be inserted naturally.
Each time you back up:
1. Compare the current source with the latest backup.
2. For files that changed or were deleted: move them into a new delta folder (timestamped).
3. For new/changed files: copy them into the latest snapshot folder (only as needed).
4. Optionally rotate old deltas to keep history manageable.
This means:
The latest backup is always a usable full snapshot (fast restore).
Previous versions can be reconstructed by applying reverse deltas.
If the source is intact, the system self-heals: corrupted backups are replaced on the next run.
Only one full copy is needed, like a versioned rsync mirror.
As time goes by, losing old versions is low-impact.
It's user friendly since the latest backup can be browsed through with regular file explorers.
Example:
Initial backup:
latest/ a.txt # "Hello" b.txt # "World"
Next day, a.txt is changed and b.txt is deleted:
latest/ a.txt # "Hi" backup-2024-06-27T14:00:00/ a.txt # "Hello" b.txt # "World"
The newest version is always in latest/, and previous versions can be reconstructed by applying the deltas in reverse.
I'm curious: has this been done before under another name? Are there edge cases I’m overlooking that make it impractical in real-world tools?
Would love your thoughts.