4 ms·
I'm a long time Arq user. I very much appreciate the honesty. I can't solve a data backup problem if I don't know what that problem is. Ont this note, I've t
by cdumler 9y ago
I'm a long time Arq user. I very much appreciate the honesty. I can't solve a data backup problem if I don't know what that problem is.
Ont this note, I've thought about something at times: If there was one feature that I would like to see is options to verify backups. Beyond the possibility of Arq having a fault, it's also very possible that a backup service has silently failed. Either, the files are corrupted or the service lies that the files exist but you can't actually download them. I would appreciate the ability to have files pulled (either periodic random or marked files) pulled and compared to local files to verify the backup. I would also want to cap the max files/bytes pulled in a month so that I don't burn too much money.
I know it took guts to make the post. You did well.
- chuckcode 9y agoLove this idea!! Verify backups or some portions of backups randomly from time to time would be great. This is one of the biggest problems I've seen with backups. A number of cases where "it used to work" but now it doesn't a year later when you need the backup.
- brandon272 9y agoI wonder if the easiest way of doing that wouldn't be to compare checksums? Saves having to re-download portions of a backup set, which could potentially get expensive in terms of bandwidth costs, and has the disadvantage of only confirming whatever files you are looking at.
- cdumler 9y agoBut, that's still trusting the provider. The provider is likely to compute it at upload time and then store in meta data. So, having that meta result returned is no more proof your files exist than listing them.