Are incremental jobs supposed to be significantly slower?

[cparker4486]

Hi everyone,

Is it correct that incremental jobs (of the Reverse Incremental type) are supposed to be significantly slower than full jobs? What I mean by that is that on the first run of a job or an active full I see Processing Rates that are in the 80MB/s+ range whereas non-full jobs are consistently way down in the 10MB/s range.

Is this expected? If so, what is the reason? My only guess is that it's because there is a significantly higher amount of calculations taking place to accommodate the incremental backup.

[foggy]

Chris, pretty detailed explanation is given here.

[cparker4486]

Thanks, foggy. That does explain it pretty well.