3 ms·
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 des
by 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 agoborg 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]