| 1 |
Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:27 AM Peter Humphrey <peter@××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Thanks Laurence. I've looked at borg before, wondering whether I needed a |
| 4 |
>> more sophisticated tool than just tar, but it looked like too much work for |
| 5 |
>> little gain. I didn't know about duplicity, but I'm used to my weekly routine |
| 6 |
>> and it seems reliable, so I'll stick with it pro tem. I've been keeping a |
| 7 |
>> daily KMail archive since the bad old days, and five weekly backups of the |
| 8 |
>> whole system, together with 12 monthly backups and, recently an annual |
| 9 |
>> backup. That last may be overkill, I dare say. |
| 10 |
> I think Restic might be gaining some ground on duplicity. I use |
| 11 |
> duplicity and it is fine, so I haven't had much need to look at |
| 12 |
> anything else. Big advantages of duplicity over tar are: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> 1. It will do all the compression/encryption/etc stuff for you - all |
| 15 |
> controlled via options. |
| 16 |
> 2. It uses librsync, which means if one byte in the middle of a 10GB |
| 17 |
> file changes, you end up with a few bytes in your archive and not 10GB |
| 18 |
> (pre-compression). |
| 19 |
> 3. It has a ton of cloud/remote backends, so it is real easy to store |
| 20 |
> the data on AWS/Google/whatever. When operating this way it can keep |
| 21 |
> local copies of the metadata, and if for some reason those are lost it |
| 22 |
> can just pull that only down from the cloud to resync without a huge |
| 23 |
> bill. |
| 24 |
> 4. It can do all the backup rotation logic (fulls, incrementals, |
| 25 |
> retention, etc). |
| 26 |
> 5. It can prefix files so that on something like AWS you can have the |
| 27 |
> big data archive files go to glacier (cheap to store, expensive to |
| 28 |
> restore), and the small metadata stays in a data class that is cheap |
| 29 |
> to access. |
| 30 |
> 6. By default local metadata is kept unencrypted, and anything on the |
| 31 |
> cloud is encrypted. This means that you can just keep a public key in |
| 32 |
> your keyring for completely unattended backups, without fear of access |
| 33 |
> to the private key. Obviously if you need to restore your metadata |
| 34 |
> from the cloud you'll need the private key for that. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> If you like the more tar-like process another tool you might want to |
| 37 |
> look at is dar. It basically is a near-drop-in replacement for tar |
| 38 |
> but it stores indexes at the end of every file, which means that you |
| 39 |
> can view archive contents/etc or restore individual files without |
| 40 |
> scanning the whole archive. tar was really designed for tape where |
| 41 |
> random access is not possible. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Curious question here. As you may recall, I backup to a external hard |
| 46 |
drive. Would it make sense to use that software for a external hard |
| 47 |
drive? Right now, I'm just doing file updates with rsync and the drive |
| 48 |
is encrypted. Thing is, I'm going to have to split into three drives |
| 49 |
soon. So, compressing may help. Since it is video files, it may not |
| 50 |
help much but I'm not sure about that. Just curious. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Dale |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
:-) :-) |
Archives