3 ms·

"Thanks for being a beacon of light in the dark." That's well put. It makes me very happy to live in a world where tarsnap exists and is priced in picodollars

• cperciva 3y ago
  For the record, I'm happy to live in a world where rsync.net exists. I've pointed quite a few customers in your direction over the years, when tarsnap hasn't been suitable for their needs for a variety of reasons.
  • jpgvm 3y ago
    They make a good pairing. I backup my ZFS NAS to rsync.net for all my media and Tarsnap for all my documents/critical things.
    • cl3misch 3y ago
      I am only using rsync.net at the moment, more specifically with the discounted "borg" mode without an explicit full shell. Your comment sounds like tarsnap is more secure (in terms of longevity) than rsync.net. Is this true? If yes, why? Genuine question, because I'm using rsync.net for my critical stuff and would gladly move to tarsnap if appropriate.
      • jpgvm 3y ago
        For me it's three fold. First is that my usage of Tarsnap pre-dates my usage of rsync.net so it's been the primary backup of my home directory since ~2010. I haven't felt a need to change it and the 2 occasions I needed to restore it everything worked perfectly. i.e don't fix what isn't broken. The second is that while I can in theory restore from rsync.net I actually never have... this is more a testament to the relability of ZFS though I guess and local snapshots have always been enough. That said the convenience of send/recv is sort of awesome. Lastly is that I don't use ZFS on my client machines. If I did I would probably consider rysnc.net for everything. So it's not really an explicit I think one is more secure or durable than the other it's that Tarsnap has fulfilled my DR needs successfully for a long time and I have come to trust it to do so in the future.
• Ellentonnq 3y ago
  [dead]