3 ms·
I used duplicity in the past, but the main problem with its incremental backups is that in order to be able to prune the backup history, you need to do full bac
by raimue 7y ago
I used duplicity in the past, but the main problem with its incremental backups is that in order to be able to prune the backup history, you need to do full backups regularly to start a new backup chain. That means transferring a full copy of the data.
I switched to restic now, which allows to take incremental backups, but can also remove any snapshot to prune the history. Although it does not support compression, due to its deduplication and removing the need to store multiple full backups, the restic repository takes less space now than duplicity before.
- OJFord 7y agoThat's a really good point I hadn't considered at all; I'm glad you mentioned it! I was looking at a benchmark (that i linked in another comment) that makes duplicity look slow, but so much more economical on storage space - i.e. cheaper. But as you point out, if you don't need a long history, incremental eventually gets more expensive. Unless you could squash older than X, I suppose, but presumably that's so expensive to run (encryption & compression) that it's not supported.
- narag 7y agoCouldn't you backup the backup instead? More space, but transfer in a local network would be faster.
- petre 7y agoWe still use Duplicity because of the ability to rsync the files to other hosts. A repo is sort of weird as it's not a date tagged single file or volune directory.