1 |
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 6:13 AM, Joost Roeleveld <joost@××××××××.org> wrote: |
2 |
> "app-backup/dar" uses catalogues for the incrementals. I think I will stick to |
3 |
> that for the foreseeable future. |
4 |
> |
5 |
|
6 |
I used to use that and sarab (which is a wrapper). I moved on to |
7 |
duplicity. The problem with dar is that it uses quite a bit of RAM as |
8 |
the number of files being backed up grows I think. So, if you have |
9 |
6TB full of multimedia it might not be a huge problem, but if you have |
10 |
6TB full of portage trees good luck with that. |
11 |
|
12 |
The other problem with dar is that if a file changes it stores a |
13 |
complete copy of it. Duplicity uses librsync, so if a file changes it |
14 |
only stores the parts that actually changed. It also uses catalogs, |
15 |
and supports things like caching catalogs (so you don't need the last |
16 |
incremental mounted), and a bunch of storage backends (like S3). |
17 |
|
18 |
However, dar definitely is more useful than tar if you want the option |
19 |
for random access. |
20 |
|
21 |
Rich |