4 ms·
It would be nice to see kopia.io in the comparison. Kopia is a backup software based on the similar concepts as other modern apps (infinite increments, rolling
by _flux 6y ago
It would be nice to see kopia.io in the comparison.
Kopia is a backup software based on the similar concepts as other modern apps (infinite increments, rolling-hash based deduplication, immutable blobs, encryption) but has some things going for it in addition, such as the support for a wide array of backends (including S3; I use it on my small Ceph cluster), repo synchronization ability (using the same array of backends), and the ability to do concurrent backups on the same repo - something borgbackup still misses.
Actually the last bit is the reason I chose to go with it at all, and I have since not regretted it, though I have only recovered small trees from it beyond testing. It can do backing from multiple computers to same repository (with dedupping) at different times without a lengthy index rebuilding. You can do this also with an intermediate server if you want clients to have different credentials to the repository (this is also quite difficult with borgbackup), but I haven't set up that yet.
I guess performance-wise it doesn't hurt it's written in Go, though I don't have good numbers on that because my backup storage is not the fastest available :). It's able to do concurrent access on S3 which helps a lot.
- novok 6y agoHow much does it take CPU wise on the client? I use arq which does need an app on the server side, but it's bog slow in scanning your client and uploading new chunks, taking up a significant amount of CPU. While something like carbon copy cloner is orders of magnitude faster. I'm upgrading to an M1 mac soon although, so that might not be as much of an issue anymore.
- _flux 6y agoDifficult to compare. I mean high CPU usage is good, it gets its job done faster, right?-) At least it is able to use multiple cores for it. Just started a backup and it seems the CPU usage stood still at at about 400%, varying from 90% to 900% at first, then I guess some second phase consumed 150%-200% CPU. I have AMD Ryzen 3900X. The increment seemed to take about 3 minutes with my 4M files. No idea really how much it changed compared to previous one, probably very little. Backup size was 320 gigabytes, and IO-wise the backing Ceph S3 was probably the bottleneck, not the local SSD.