3 ms·
"There’s a few headlines talking about backups - does apple finally have a cloud based time machine replacement?" Apple doesn't, but we do. You simply do a "d
by rsync 5y ago
"There’s a few headlines talking about backups - does apple finally have a cloud based time machine replacement?"
Apple doesn't, but we do.
You simply do a "dumb" 1:1 mirror to an rsync.net account with 'rsync', which you already have.
Then you set up an arbitrary snapshot schedule in your account. rsync.net will then create, and rotate, immutable snapshots of your dataset. [1]
The only difference is that our ZFS snapshots are bit-wise efficient whereas the time machine snapshots are still (I think) file-wise efficient ... which is to say they are less efficient.
We used to advertise this ... the notion that you could clone your time machine config to rsync.net ... but we came to the conclusion that there's a pretty insular hackers-on-osx bubble and, in reality, 99% of mac users don't drop to the command line for any reason.
Which is too bad ...
[1] https://twitter.com/rsyncnet/status/1453044746213990405 https://twitter.com/rsyncnet/status/1453044746213990405
- beermonster 5y agoWould you say that this is the most time machine-esque way of using your service? I’d imagine using borg (pulled from macports/homebrew) and using MacFUSE to local mount would seem pretty time machine like whilst offering other benefits over rsync such as client side encryption, compression and deduplication (the dedupe might be irrelevant since you’re using zfs)
- rsync 5y agoYes, I would say that. It's also the simplest method - again, just a dumb rsync command that you re-run every day. If you are using borg you would probably handle the retention and versioning yourself with the borg tool and perhaps set just one or two daily snapshots at rsync.net. These would not be for your backup schema, but rather, for safety in case of mistakes/ransomware/mallory.