5 ms·
Technically Borg doesn't require it either, you can backup to a local directory and then use `rclone` to upload the repo wherever. Not practical for huge backu
by pdimitar 3y ago
Technically Borg doesn't require it either, you can backup to a local directory and then use `rclone` to upload the repo wherever.
Not practical for huge backups but it works for me as I'm backing up my machines configuration and code directories only. ~60MB, and that includes a lot of code and some data (SQL, JSON et. al.)
- stavros 3y agoSure, but rsync requires the server to support rsync.
- pdimitar 3y agoDoes rclone require rsync? Haven't checked.
- stavros 3y agoOh sorry, brain fart, I thought you said rsync. I think rclone uploads everything if you don't have rclone on the server, but I'm not sure.
- pdimitar 3y agoPretty sure rclone uploads just fine without server dependencies, yeah. I never installed anything special on my home NAS and it happily accepts uploads with rclone.
- stavros 3y agoIt will upload fine, but it can't upload only the changed parts of the file without server support.
- pdimitar 3y agoThat I can't really speak of. I know it does not reupload the same files at least (uses timestamps) but never really checked about only uploading file diffs. Do you have a direct link I can look at?
- stavros 3y agoNothing offhand, but basically it can't know what's on the server without reading it all, and if it can't do that locally, it'll have to do it remotely. At that point, might as well re-upload the whole thing. Its front page hints at this, but there must be details somewhere.
- pdimitar 3y agoNot to make this an endless thread, but I have been wondering about what's the most rsync-friendly backup on-disk layout. I have found Borg to have less files and directories which I would naively think translates to less checks (and the files are not huge, too). I have tried Kopia and Bupstash as well but they both produce a lot of files and directories, much more than Borg. So I think Borg wins at this but I haven't checked Restic and the various Duplic[ati|icity|whatever-else] programs in a while (last I did at least a year ago).
- stavros 3y agoI think the advantage of restic is that you don't need to rsync afterwards, it handles all that for you. Combined with its FUSE backup decryption (it mounts the remote backup as a local filesystem you can restore files from), it's very set-and-forget.
- pdimitar 3y agoMy problem with Restic was that it did not recognize sub-second timestamps of files. I made test scripts that tested it (and were creating files and directories in a hypothetical backup source, and were also changing the files) but then Restic insisted nothing was changed because the changes were happening too fast. I modified the scripts to do `sleep 1` between each change but it left a sour taste and I never gave Restic a fair chance. I see a good amount of praise in this thread, I'll definitely revisit it when I get a little free time and energy. Because yeah, it's not expected you'll make a second backup snapshots <1s after the first one. :D
- formerly_proven 3y agoFor the "replicating borg repos" use case this doesn't matter, because files are only written once and never modified afterwards.