4 ms·

Sounds like you want Borg https://borgbackup.readthedocs.io/en/stable/ https://borgbackup.readthedocs.io/en/stable/ My two 80% full 1tb laptops and 1tb deskto

Sounds like you want Borg https://borgbackup.readthedocs.io/en/stable/ https://borgbackup.readthedocs.io/en/stable/ My two 80% full 1tb laptops and 1tb desktop backup to around 300-400G after dedupe and compression. Currently have around 12tb of backups stored in that 300G. Incremental backups run in about 5 mins even against the spinning disk's they're stored on.

codethief 4y ago
I don't think GP was talking about backups (which is what Borg is good for) but about synchronization between machines which is another issue entirely.
0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
Python programmer here, but I actually prefer Restic [0]. While more or less the same experience, the huge selling point to me is that the backup program is a single executable that can be easily stored alongside the backups. I do not want any dependency/environment issues to assert themselves when restoration is required (which is most likely on a virgin, unconfigured system). [0] https://restic.net/ https://restic.net/
- SomeoneOnTheWeb 4y ago
  You can also take a look at Kopia (https://kopia.io/ https://kopia.io/). I've been using Borg, Restic and Kopia for a long time and Kopia is my personal favorite - very fast, very efficient, runs in the background automatically without having to schedule a CRON or anything like that. Only downside is that the backups are made of a HUGE number of files, so when synchronizing it can sometimes take a bit of time to check the ~5k files.
  - klodolph 4y ago
    I’ve been using Kopia, I recommend it.
  - wanderingmind 4y ago
    Highly recommend Kopia that has a nice UI and can work with rclone (so any cloud back end)
wereallterrrist 4y ago
No, I distinctly don't want borg. It doesn't help or solve anything that Syncthing doesn't do. The obsession with borg and bup are pretty baffling to me. We deserve better in this space. (see: Asuran and another who's name I forget...) Critically, I'm specifically referring to code sync that needs to operate at a git-level to get the huge efficiencies I'm thinking of. Syncthing, or borg, scanning 8 copies of the Linux kernel is pretty horrific compared to something doing a "git commit && git push" and "git pull --rebase" in the background (over-simplifying the shadow-branch process here for brevity.) re: 'we deserve better' -- case in point, see Asuran - there's no real reason that sync and backup have to be distinctly different tools. Given chunking and dedupe and append-logs, we really, really deserve better in this tooling space.
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  borg et al and "git commit" work in essentially the same way. Both scan the entire tree for changes using modification timestamps.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > borg et al and "git commit" work in essentially the same way. Both scan the entire tree for changes using modification timestamps. But git commit doesn’t do that. If you want to do that in git, you typically do it before commit with “git add -A”.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
_dain_ 4y ago
They work together. I use syncthing to keep things synchronized across devices, including to an always-on "master" device that has more storage. Then borg runs on the master device to create backups.

codethief 4y ago

I don't think GP was talking about backups (which is what Borg is good for) but about synchronization between machines which is another issue entirely.

0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago

Python programmer here, but I actually prefer Restic [0]. While more or less the same experience, the huge selling point to me is that the backup program is a single executable that can be easily stored alongside the backups. I do not want any dependency/environment issues to assert themselves when restoration is required (which is most likely on a virgin, unconfigured system). [0] https://restic.net/ https://restic.net/

SomeoneOnTheWeb 4y ago
You can also take a look at Kopia (https://kopia.io/ https://kopia.io/). I've been using Borg, Restic and Kopia for a long time and Kopia is my personal favorite - very fast, very efficient, runs in the background automatically without having to schedule a CRON or anything like that. Only downside is that the backups are made of a HUGE number of files, so when synchronizing it can sometimes take a bit of time to check the ~5k files.
- klodolph 4y ago
  I’ve been using Kopia, I recommend it.
- wanderingmind 4y ago
  Highly recommend Kopia that has a nice UI and can work with rclone (so any cloud back end)

wereallterrrist 4y ago

No, I distinctly don't want borg. It doesn't help or solve anything that Syncthing doesn't do. The obsession with borg and bup are pretty baffling to me. We deserve better in this space. (see: Asuran and another who's name I forget...) Critically, I'm specifically referring to code sync that needs to operate at a git-level to get the huge efficiencies I'm thinking of. Syncthing, or borg, scanning 8 copies of the Linux kernel is pretty horrific compared to something doing a "git commit && git push" and "git pull --rebase" in the background (over-simplifying the shadow-branch process here for brevity.) re: 'we deserve better' -- case in point, see Asuran - there's no real reason that sync and backup have to be distinctly different tools. Given chunking and dedupe and append-logs, we really, really deserve better in this tooling space.

formerly_proven 4y ago
borg et al and "git commit" work in essentially the same way. Both scan the entire tree for changes using modification timestamps.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > borg et al and "git commit" work in essentially the same way. Both scan the entire tree for changes using modification timestamps. But git commit doesn’t do that. If you want to do that in git, you typically do it before commit with “git add -A”.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

_dain_ 4y ago

They work together. I use syncthing to keep things synchronized across devices, including to an always-on "master" device that has more storage. Then borg runs on the master device to create backups.