3 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoI second this! Have used Arq for several years, it works great. Happy to see performance improvements!
- tomaskafka 11y agoCan 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).