35 ms·

Arq 5: Massively faster backup and restore for Mac and Windows

• m_eiman 11y ago
  I like Arq, use it as a "real, offsite" backup complement to Time Machine. Not quite as fire-and-forget as Time Machine, but darn close! And the format of the stored data is available, which is a nice safety feature in case of major problems.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• victorhooi 11y ago
  Argh, the website is down...lol: "Error establishing a database connection"
  • stronglikedan 11y ago
    It appears that there may be an issue with just their blog. The main site[0], and most of its links, works for me. [0] https://www.arqbackup.com/ https://www.arqbackup.com/
    • vog 11y ago
      At the moment, this site takes ~30 seconds for every single request. But at least it works at all.
• larrysalibra 11y ago
  Love arq too. Rumor has it arq 5 will also stop eating up free space with its cache.noindex folder. Excited about that!
  • sreitshamer 11y ago
    True! It uses sqlite databases (finally). (I work at Haystack Software :)
    • lobster_johnson 11y ago
      Tried to purchase, but it sends me to a bad URL: $ host store.arqbackup.com Host store.arqbackup.com not found: 2(SERVFAIL)
      • sreitshamer 11y ago
        Sorry about that. Should work now.
        • lobster_johnson 11y ago
          Thanks. I now get to the store, but it gets a 500 Internal Error trying to verify my key. Also, the Purchase link does embed my Arq 4 license key, but in the form, the upgrade license key field is empty, and I have to find it from my old .arqLicense file and paste it. I don't even know if I'm copying the right thing.
          • kaypro 11y ago
            Same here. Let me know if you figure this out. I'll do the same. I just shot Stefan an email but I'm sure he's inundated at the moment...
          • larrysalibra 11y ago
            Having same key verification problems too. Will try again tomorrow!
            • rubenfonseca 10y ago
              Still having the same problem today...
          • kaypro 10y ago
            They just added a "Retrieve license code" link on the web site below the Arq 4 license code field. I was able to upgrade no problem. FYI.
    • 11y ago
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• roddux 11y ago
  Google cache link: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dy3xEVo6yiwJ:https://www.arqbackup.com/blog/arq-5-massively-faster-backup-and-restore/ https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dy3xEV...
• ejdyksen 11y ago
  Mirror: https://gist.github.com/15dde3fb013581b6aa59bf0b0c3a701e https://gist.github.com/15dde3fb013581b6aa59bf0b0c3a701e
  • njade 11y ago
    thanks
• sreitshamer 11y ago
  Bah, I guess hosting a site at digitalocean isn't suitable for HN front page? Even WP super cache isn't saving me.
  • lstamour 11y ago
    Add CloudFlare? ;-)
  • ultramancool 11y ago
    Just throw it behind CloudFlare quick, they'll cache it and you'll be set. They're pretty reputable for free speech and fighting for their customers too, so I trust them to a decent degree.
    • cscharenberg 11y ago
      Agreed. CloudFlare is a simple way to add some caching power to a site for free. Or for a few bucks a month enable a bunch of other features.
  • Sir_Cmpwn 11y ago
    It should be fine. The problem is more likely that your stack isn't put together very well. Don't throw more hardware/dollars at it, refine your stack.
  • sneak 11y ago
    Stop using wordpress.
    • vox_mollis 11y ago
      This is the correct solution. Not sure why it's downvoted.
    • falcolas 11y ago
      At a minimum, add some caching in front of WordPress. Even a 1 minute cache of pages will result in being able to host your WordPress site just about anywhere. Throw in a CDN, and you could almost host it on a Raspberry Pi and throw Reddit at it.
• ghshephard 11y ago
  Arq, (For backups to AWS - though obviously supports every cloud back end under the sun) and "Data Backup" by ProSoft engineering (For backups to USB) are my goto backup tools for day-day ensuring all my work documents are kept up to date. Yes, I have Crashplan (for the last couple years, backblaze for the three years before that) - but the constant chewing up of CPU cycles gets annoying after a while. And both crashplan/backblaze "everything for $5" come with massive caveats (like deleting backups of Hard Drives that haven't been plugged in for 6 months - I've got Arq Backups of Hard Drives that I haven't plugged in for a couple years, safe and sound) - and I've never had an AWS backup bill in excess of $3.00, ARQ does a wicked good job of keeping your backups on a tight budget. Also - awesome win for ARQ - when I moved to Singapore, I simply added a AWS Singapore S3 Bucket and wowza - fast backups on my gigabit ($49/month) link from MyRepublic. Really feel like I'm living in the future. I think once I switch away from Aperture over to Photos, which presumably has a rock solid backup to iCloud photos, then simply doing a quarterly backup or so with CarbonCopyCloner + Arq to AWS + DataBackup to USB key will have my OS X backups covered.
  • statictype 11y ago
    like deleting backups of Hard Drives that haven't been plugged in for 6 months Wait - what? If your hard disk gets lost or destroyed, how do you protect those backups?
    • 0xCMP 11y ago
      You need to keep them connected periodically otherwise if you lose it without reconnecting... lost. For backblaze it's even less time.
      • beernutz 11y ago
        I believe for CrashPlan, this ONLY applies to CLOUD backups. If you backup to local media or across computers, there is no "auto-delete" timeframe.
        • 11y ago
• matrixagent 11y ago
  Awesome, can't wait to upgrade tonight! Any news on the Linux / CLI version?
  • AnthonBerg 11y ago
    PLEASE give us a Linux version!
    • AnthonBerg 11y ago
      Can I preorder or sponsor a Linux version somewhere?
      • arqq 11y ago
        +1 :)
• krzrak 11y ago
  $50/year and you have to provide your own storage? Can somebody explain to me how they are competitive, i.e. in comparison with Crashplan or Backblaze? edit: my bad, it's $50 for one time purchase, not a year.
  • pdgwien 11y ago
    Where do you see $50/year? From what I can gather, that is a one-time fee.
  • tuix 11y ago
    It's not per year, it's for current major version (if you don't want lifetime upgrade option). edit: You get a free upgrade if there is a major version released within 90 days of your order (if you don't order lifetime upgrade of course)
  • pvg 11y ago
    It also has no wireless.
    • davidjhall 11y ago
      Not sure where you see that? On the features page, https://www.arqbackup.com/features/ https://www.arqbackup.com/features/, under "Limit Network Impact", the image lists whether to use all wireless or no wireless. I don't have the software so I can't confirm.
      • ProblemFactory 11y ago
        It is probably a reference to the (in)famous launch review of iPod on Slashdot: https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ipod https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-i... > No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
  • ghshephard 11y ago
    It's a one time fee for really awesome software. Upgrades are every couple years, and only about $25. My backup bills on AWS have never been more than $3/month (I only backup my actual documents) - and you have total control - don't have to worry about the policy engine at BackBlaze/CrashPlan arbitrarily deleting old hard drives that haven't been plugged in.
• amelius 11y ago
  How is this, from a technical point of view, more advanced than running rsync in a regular fashion (with hardlinks to keep cheap snapshots)? Just wondering about the technical aspects.
  • krrrh 11y ago
    Client-side encryption is a big one. It also has a passable gui which can be helpful when restoring files, and does a pretty good job of scheduling and throttling upload speeds. I had an older version that I upgraded to 4.x because they added support for uploading backups to Dropbox and I was already paying for a Dropbox pro account that had plenty of unused space. The ability to have versioned backups on various cloud services that don't support rsync is a big plus.
  • sreitshamer 11y ago
    It's also versioned backup, like Time Machine. Not just a clone of the latest.
    • falcolas 11y ago
      You can do this with rsync as well, including the hardlinked-to-older file method. Have a look at the `--link-dest` option to rsync.
      • tomovo 11y ago
        rsnapshot: "rsnapshot is a filesystem snapshot utility based on rsync. rsnapshot makes it easy to make periodic snapshots of local machines, and remote machines over ssh. The code makes extensive use of hard links whenever possible, to greatly reduce the disk space required." http://rsnapshot.org http://rsnapshot.org
      • Freaky 11y ago
        Arq is like Tarsnap/Attic/Borg in that it uses shift-resistant block deduplication - it can efficiently cope with small modifications to existing files, where rsync would have to clone the entire file for each new version.
• blue1 11y ago
  If I understand well, Arq does not backup the whole computer. I am looking for a tool that allows for recovery of single files, but also that has a backup of the whole machine, so that if the HD crashes it is possible to rebuild it verbatim. What does HN suggest for such a tool? I used Norton Ghost for years (but it has been discontinued).
  • mike 11y ago
    Either of SuperDuper! http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.html http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription... or Carbon Copy Cloner https://bombich.com/ https://bombich.com/ is great for making a complete, bootable copy of a drive.
  • gcb0 11y ago
    for disk deaths I'd just settle with raid. life should be simple.
    • wrboyce 11y ago
      Not always feasible (laptops, macs).
      • gcb0 10y ago
        my netbook from 2003 accepts two ssd (Asus eeepc 1000). you should stop getting work equipment because of looks or peer pressure.
    • leejoramo 11y ago
      RAID does nothing in case of `rm -rf /` the physical death of a drive is not the only reason you may find yourself needing a bootable backup: * accidentally deletion of system files * theft, fire * system update that goes wrong
    • reiichiroh 11y ago
      raid isn't for backup. it's for uptime.
• PaulHoule 11y ago
  "Error establishing a database connection"
  • sreitshamer 11y ago
    Fixed now. Sorry. The load from HN was too much for a while.
    • reiichiroh 11y ago
      Can't start a trial account. Failed to activate. The remote name could not be resolved. store.arqbackup.com
• yoz-y 11y ago
  I find it a bit ironic that this particular blog has an inaccessible database at this particular time. This being put aside I find their pricing a bit excessive in comparison to Backblaze for example.
  • LVB 11y ago
    How much data are you backing up? The compression and deduplication seem pretty good in Arq. My monthly AWS (and now Google Nearline) bill is usually around $2, so I hit the breakeven point vs the $5/month services pretty quickly.
    • yoz-y 11y ago
      My current backup is around 300 Gigs. I see the big advantage of Arq (over Backblaze) is the fact that you can choose your host. However their own hosting solution for $10/mo with a 250GB data cap is quite expensive. I can see that for smaller amounts of data Arq is more interesting, especially since it also stores history (which Backblaze does not).
      • chipotle_coyote 11y ago
        It's worth noting that Arq can back up to Amazon Cloud Drive, which offers unlimited storage for $59.99 a year. As soon as they offered that I switched from Glacier storage; Cloud Driver is faster, cheaper and less fiddly.
        • mobiuscog 11y ago
          the pricing is great for the US... not so good for the rest of the world (for example: https://www.amazon.co.uk/clouddrive/pricing?ref_=cd_home_plans_pricing https://www.amazon.co.uk/clouddrive/pricing?ref_=cd_home_pla...)
          • reiichiroh 11y ago
            For Canadians, it's $60 CAD.
• kylefox 11y ago
  I've been using Arq for years and absolutely love it. Worth every penny. It is extremely well-built software — it's FAST, doesn't hog resources, and feels very polished & reliable. I like that I can backup to multiple destinations (AWS S3/Glacier, Dropbox, Google Drive, even my own server via SFTP). IMO you can never have too many backups. I use it along with Backblaze (and will be setting up Time Machine & Super Duper or Carbon Copy Cloner this week, after putting it off forever). Congrats to the Haystack team!
• CameronBanga 11y ago
  Been an Arq user for years now, and recommend it to anyone. Love being able to choose my own storage solution, control encryption keys, etc. For Arq team (saw one or two here), is B2 on the roadmap?
  • skrause 11y ago
    Arq's author has said on Twitter that the B2 API doesn't support all commands Arq needs, so even if B2 support was planned (which it isn't) it wouldn't be possible yet: https://twitter.com/arqbackup/status/717756616578301952 https://twitter.com/arqbackup/status/717756616578301952
    • atYevP 11y ago
      Yev from Backblaze -> We're working on a few APIs and some should be aligned with what ARQ is looking for. We're hoping that they do integrate with us, giving folks an inexpensive alternative!
  • swah 11y ago
    Just found out about it... Why not just Google Drive, or Dropbox?
• riprowan 11y ago
  Thanks for the tip. I'm checking out Arq now! FWIW I've been a big fan of Syncovery (formerly SuperFlexible File Synchronizer) for years. It's a Swiss Army Knife of backup/recovery. https://www.syncovery.com/ https://www.syncovery.com/
  • ghshephard 11y ago
    Syncovery looks pretty awesome for what it does, I just installed it to take a look, - Directory Synchronizaton - but it's achilles heel for file backups (as opposed to directory/disk cloning) - is appears to be it's lack of any type of versioning. I.E. If I make changes to a file each day, and do backups each day - no way to go back to a version of the file a couple weeks ago?
    • riprowan 11y ago
      It has a versioning feature IIRC but I can't vouch for how sexy it is.
• lobster_johnson 11y ago
  As an Arq user, this makes me happy, as Arq is not exactly known for being fast. The announcement doesn't say, but I'm hoping they have reduced the amount of space needed for the client-side cache (currently 18GB (!) on my laptop).
  • sreitshamer 11y ago
    Yes. I just added that to the announcement post. It stores stuff in sqlite databases that are a lot smaller.
    • lobster_johnson 10y ago
      It went from 18GB to 600MB! That's awesome, thanks!
• skrause 11y ago
  Still no support for S3's "Infrequent Access" storage class? It would be perfect for backups and is a good compromise between normal S3 and Glacier.
  • lobster_johnson 11y ago
    It does support that: http://i.imgur.com/EC1e83h.jpg http://i.imgur.com/EC1e83h.jpg.
    • skrause 11y ago
      Great! It should have been mentioned in the announcement because I've been waiting for this option a long time.
• coffeecheque 11y ago
  I was a user of Arq 3, but it was slow and seemed to eat up resources on my computer. I eventually turned it off, deleted the backups and deleted it. Not a great backup plan. So I'm keen to know how much faster Arq 4 was, and in turn Arq 5. I'd be happy to try again (I think I'll have to pay full price again as I'm not an Arq 4 user) - but might wait until someone can let me know just how much faster it really is. This whole thread has also reminded me to run my backups to local Time Machine!
• nihonde 11y ago
  I have nothing to add except that I've been a happy customer of Arq for years, and Stefan and team have provided us very helpful and personal support by email on the rare occasions when we needed it.
• claar 11y ago
  It appears Arq's being destroyed by HN currently -- I downloaded the trial for Mac, but when I press "Start Trial" I get "Failed to create trial - A server with the specified hostname could not be found." I'll try again tomorrow.
• enoch_r 11y ago
  What compression was used before Arq 5? lz4 is super fast, but not particularly space-efficient compared to some slower compression algorithms. Since Arq customers are the ones paying the storage bills, this doesn't seem like an entirely costless decision--Arq is now faster, but you should expect your storage bills to go up a bit due to the lower compression. I use Borg backup with lz4 compression, so I definitely don't think this is the wrong decision, just something to keep in mind (and, it does seem like something that could and maybe should be user-configurable).
  • skrause 11y ago
    Arq's data format description says that the other supported compression type is gzip, which I assume was used before: https://www.arqbackup.com/arq_data_format.txt https://www.arqbackup.com/arq_data_format.txt
  • lobster_johnson 11y ago
    I'm also curious about the choice of LZ4. It's fast, but its compression is pretty awful. For example, on simple, regular text (JSON) files I'm seeing about 45% worse compression than plain gzip (default compression level). I hope at least it's using the highest compression level, but I've found that "lz4 -9" is about as slow as "gzip -6", still with worse compression. I'd be happier if the choice of compression was dependent on the size of files. The larger a file, the more you gain from compression. Does Arq skip compression for already-compressed files (.gz, .xz, .bz2 etc.)?
  • xref 11y ago
    Curious decision, as lz4's terrible compression ratio burns you both in monthly storage fees, as well as Glacier (or other service) restore fees. Most of my backup set is pictures and compressed files, so maybe the lz4 decision was because they figured the majority of their customers fell in that category where no compression algorithm is going to help?
• kayoone 11y ago
  I use Arq to backup all my stuff hourly to my NAS at home through SFTP and the NAS then backups the most important stuff to AWS daily. That works really well and keeps the cost really low because i need the NAS anyway for streaming media an such.
• trufflepiggames 11y ago
  I know this problem and it's probably because this site sucks energy from everything else! http://www.bridezilla-game.com http://www.bridezilla-game.com
• leejoramo 11y ago
  One long standing issue I have with Arq is that there is no easy way to duplicate backup selections. I would love to be able to easily copy the selections between different destinations, or different systems that are being backed up. Several years ago, I tried to manually edit the plist preference files, but that was painful and unsustainable hack.
• fasteo 11y ago
  I am a happy user of duplicity [1]. Discussed here [2]. Some comparison with Arq here [3]. It is more oriented towards servers and system administrators, but works pretty well and has a similar feature set. [1] http://duplicity.nongnu.org/ http://duplicity.nongnu.org/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6712244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6712244 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6712411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6712411
• jwr 11y ago
  Arq doesn't get the publicity it deserves. It's a reliable, provider-independent backup solution that YOU control. Data gets encrypted locally, then sent over to storage providers. When new storage providers appear, Arq implements APIs and lets you use them. Most importantly, when restoring, you don't enter your decryption password/key into a browser window. I don't understand how online-backup companies can talk about security while requiring users to give them their passwords in order to restore data. I've been using Arq for about two years now and I'm very happy with it. For the reference, I have previous experience with CrashPlan and Backblaze.
  • sandstrom 11y ago
    I second this! Have used Arq for several years, it works great. Happy to see performance improvements!
  • tomaskafka 11y ago
    Can you compare CrashPlan and Arq performance please? I use self-hosted CrashPlan for several years, it's great, but restores and thinning archives feel slow (like half a day for cca 1 TB of backups).
    • mahyarm 11y ago
      Well arq 4 was slow, but now arq 5 is much faster, uploading at 10MB/s from my macbook over wifi to amazon cloud drive.
    • jwr 10y ago
      I had nothing but performance problems with CrashPlan, so Arq was a significant improvement. But that's setting the bar low.
• bhauer 11y ago
  This sounds great. To my mind, it seems an approximation of Tarsnap but on Windows. Is it possible to use Arq to backup to network connected disks via Windows SMB? In other words, is it necessary for me to use one of the supported cloud providers or can I just use one of my own servers as a destination? Similarly, is it possible to setup multiple redundant backup destinations (e.g., S3 and Google Drive, or S3 and my own servers)?
  • skrause 11y ago
    The release notes at https://www.arqbackup.com/download/arq5_release_notes.html https://www.arqbackup.com/download/arq5_release_notes.html mention that you can now backup to a local directory or network drive. It's weird that the most interesting features were not actually mentioned in the main announcement.
    • bhauer 11y ago
      Fantastic. I think I'm going to give Arq a trial and see how it works for my use-case.
• DenisM 11y ago
  Given the rise of ransomware in the recent months, what protection does Arq offer against that? That thing alone would easily tip the scales for me versus the Time Machine. I see that the AWS S3 IAM user has both read and write access, so if the ransomware authors ever bother with it, they can kill the backups. Would that help if I setup versioning on the bucket? Will Arq be able to restore backups from the older version of data, before the attack takes place? Any other ideas?
  • philsnow 11y ago
    Bucket versioning should help with this. I don't use Arq and don't know if it supports s3 bucket versioning, so it might not be convenient but the data would still exist. Although if an attacker has control writing to your s3 bucket, they could rack up a big bill.
    • DenisM 11y ago
      There is no monetary incentive to rack up the bill, but there is an incentive to kill backups - ransom demands are a lot more persuasive when the victim has no backup.
  • eridius 11y ago
    Why would that tip the scales versus Time Machine? Time Machine should provide the same protection as Arq, i.e. versioned backups from before the ransomware attack should be safe. I know there was some hue and cry a little while ago about Mac ransomware that can encrypt network drives and external hard drives, but there's a reason why the _encrypt_timemachine routine was an unused stub. From what I understand, Time Machine has protections built into the kernel that prevents existing backups from being modified. New backups after the ransomware attack would obviously end up backing up encrypted data, but the existing backups should remain untouched.
    • DenisM 11y ago
      Well, it should, but does it? Time Capsule's drive is just another network drive. The data could be easily erased. There's also a button in the Airport Utility that nukes all data on the drive. There is no reason for me to believe that this button could not be triggered by rouge software. It would be nice if you could provide citations to the opposite.
• philsnow 11y ago
  I would just like to point out that this is major release 5 and they're just now adding threading and consumption of filesystem events. That's _great_ from the standpoint of launching a product. Putting off adding this complexity probably let them get to market sooner. If I were releasing something like Arq, I would have to fight myself very, very hard to not add these to the 0.1 release. I don't know this space very well, but maybe there are several Arq-alikes who started earlier, but didn't release until later because it wasn't "done" yet, and they missed their chance.
  • DenisM 11y ago
    Well, seeing the success of Arq will certainly help you in fighting that fight. :)
  • ghshephard 11y ago
    But ARQ has always been fast, and figured out what it needed to backup pretty much instantly, and just did it's job and got out of the way - unlike things like spotlight/mdworker, or crashplan/backblaze, that are constantly thrashing my CPU and causing my fans to spin up. From my uneducated perspective, having simple software that just worked was a bonus - who knows, maybe with the addition of threading, and consumption of filesystem events, ARQ is going to become crummy, and a door will be opened for someone else to write simple backup software without those features that gets the job done and doesn't bog up your computer. I guess we'll have to try Arq 5 for a few weeks to find out. Fingers Crossed.
  • nowbacktowork 10y ago
    For me personally having a history in this space these are two 1.0 features if releasing today. Back when they released 1.0 it might not have been obvious that these features were needed to differentiate. But getting the single threaded path solid before adding parallelism is a good choice.
• overcast 11y ago
  Awesome, got an email about an hour ago stating I received a free upgrade to 5 from my 4 license. Been using Arq for a couple years now, it's been a perfect solution for offsite backups.
  • sreitshamer 11y ago
    We upgraded all Arq 4 purchases in the prior 90 days to Arq 5 for free. We even converted the per-computer licenses to per-user licenses, so if you bought licenses for 3 computers, you now have Arq 5 licenses for 3 users.
    • overcast 10y ago
      Fantastic!
• huhtenberg 11y ago
  Stefan, can you disclose how many people are working on the Arq now? For some reason I always had an impression that you were impressively managing the whole thing just by yourself.
• flurpitude 11y ago
  Has anyone tried both this and Crashplan? My Crashplan 10-computer subscription comes up for renewal soon so I'd be interested in people's experiences of how they compare. Generally I've found Crashplan to be pretty good. I like the way it backs up in frequent small increments and I like the backup destination options (cloud, folder, other PC, etc.). Does Arq compare well?
  • cpach 11y ago
    Arq can’t send backups directly to a hard drive, but it can use an SSH (SFTP) server as a destination. [Edit: Apparently the release notes for Arq 5 says it can now back up to a local folder.] I have never tried Crashplan though. The main reason I chose Arq instead is the impression that Arq has a better thought-out encryption scheme.
• c0nsumer 11y ago
  Any of you know how to get your license code for an upgrade? I have the original email from when I bought Arq 4 in 2014, and it contains a license file. This is an XML with sections like 'id' and 'licenseKey' but neither of those are working.
  • cpach 11y ago
    I don’t know, but why not just contact the author? He’s very pleasant to deal with in my experience.
    • c0nsumer 11y ago
      I've emailed, but no response yet (I figure the support folks are very overwhelmed with a new release) so I thought I'd ask here as well.
    • c0nsumer 10y ago
      To add, they sorted it out by adding an option on the site to retrieve the license code. I've now got an Arq 5 license and lifetime upgrades. I think that having Arq back up to spare space at a Linode VM is a great way to use it.
• mwexler 11y ago
  Didn't JungleDisk (http://jungledisk.com http://jungledisk.com) kind of start this "backup to AWS, control your own data" movement? Does anyone use them anymore? I recall that they started as pay one price, then switched to a subscription model too... I wound up on Crashplan, though it's not perfect either.
• ancarda 11y ago
  Off topic: Is anyone else getting an SSL error trying to connect? This page opens fine on my Mac (OS X 10.11.4, Safari 9.1) but my iPhone (iOS 9.3.1) asks me to trust the certificate (ssl376366.cloudflaressl.com) Edit: Screenshots: https://imgur.com/a/wdfDt https://imgur.com/a/wdfDt Also, this appears to not happen on Wi-Fi. Willing to send any information I can gleam from this -- I'd be interested to know if this is a MITM attack or a mistake on CloudFlare's side.
• victorhooi 11y ago
  Hmm, there's nothing on the announcement about how to upgrade your existing backups? Say you have a large backup stored on S3 or Google Drive - has anybody used this, and can tell me if it upgrades it seamlessly to take advantage of the new features (e.g. LZ4 compression), or if you need to do a fresh upgrade?
  • igas 11y ago
    Yeah, I also curious about this one.
• brightball 11y ago
  This. Looks. Awesome.
• reiichiroh 11y ago
  I guess those people with less complicated needs could use https://cryptomator.org/ https://cryptomator.org/ to upload the $60/year Amazon Cloud Drive.
• hsshah 11y ago
  Can I use Arq to backup disks connected to my airport extreme router? I don't have a desktop; will be installing it on my laptop. Can I schedule when to backup ?
• victorhooi 11y ago
  Trying to buy my upgrade now - but it keeps telling me my Arq 4 license key is invalid. I've tried both the licenseKey field, and the hash field from the license XML file I got when I bought Arq 4. Has anybody else had success buying an upgrade license?
• jonfle 11y ago
  Been using Arq since version 2 (2010) on multiple machines. Very happy with Arq and with Stefan's support. I use it with dual destinations for my offsite backup - about 9Tb. I also use it to provide family in another country with a viable offsite backup. Restores just work.
• frankhofmann 10y ago
  been a user since arq 2. It's the best. Question to any knowledgeable folks: Why does the tool cause so much download in normal operation ? (i.e. no restoring of files) I have about 60gb backed up at rest, and am on a backup-every-2h-cycle. I generate about 6 GB of download traffic each month. So funnily enough, the traffic costs me more than the actual storage :) mind you it's still next to nothing, but I found it just curious.
• jibsen 10y ago
  The Mac version has gotten a lot of good response, so I tried installing the Windows version. It feels a bit like a beta sadly. - Backups to local folder do not work - Scheduled backups don't always run until you open the GUI - Open log viewer before any backups have been performed crashes the app - File-Exit does nothing - Wizard adds whole C:\ to first destination - Doesn't seem to backup (all) locked files I've reported all of these, and the author seems responsive, so I hope it gets better.