4 ms·
I find that surprsing. I've been using SpiderOak for years without noticing any bloat or performance issues with the background service. On the contrary, I was
by fauigerzigerk 10y ago
I find that surprsing.
I've been using SpiderOak for years without noticing any bloat or performance issues with the background service. On the contrary, I was often surprised how little space I'm using in spite of the fact that they store multiple versions of my files. It doesn't hog memory or bandwidth or CPU at all.
The UI is indeed a bit weird and its performance can be erratic sometimes, but it gets the job done and has a lot of useful features.
Most importantly, SpiderOak has reliably protected me from losing data and I don't have to babysit it. It just works.
(I'm a happy paying customer. No affiliation with them whatsoever)
- StavrosK 10y agoI used to be a paying customer (years ago, things may be better now), and I had many issues with CPU getting stuck at 100% for long stretches of time, or uploads/downloads would transfer a bunch of data, or would be slow, things like that. Then, one day, my account got full, and I couldn't delete anything unless I got some more free space first (see the problem?). I believe support gave me a few extra GB just for the deletion, but that didn't work either and I decided to stop using the whole thing. That's when I switched to attic/borg, which is much superior for my use case (backups).