then you'll prune more than you want, but you can delegate the pruning to the PBS doing the sync in this case to avoid that.
I am not sure you know how PBS works under the hood, but I can't really parse what you wrote above
Ok, so it doesn't have a keep at least until duplicated off option. Someone common on some systems, but most are more of a push for replication, and PBS is more of a pull for replication.
I don't know completely how it works under the hood, but the data-structures are pretty obvious and most of the design choices are pretty obvious. The only surprise so far was the pull nature instead of push between pbs systems, but I am sure there are others I just don't know what I don't know yet...
Sorry for my ramblings, but to rephrase...
1. I highly suspect, that your statement "doesn't solve the issue that the transfer between local and remote over http 2.0 will be slower than expected" is incorrect, and it will greatly improve it. (I'll setup and test replication to a remote PBS as I don't want any surprises before ordering hw, but will be awhile)
2. Reasons for #1:
a. There will already be a recurring backup to the remote site, and so only the new chunks from last backup will require transferring between sites, and depending on schedule might have already transferred.
I hope you are not suggesting the sync is still really slow between incremental backups between two PBS systems when the changed chunks is relatively small % of the vm.