7 ms·

Fun fact: bup has a fuse module to access saved files: https://github.com/bup/bup/blob/master/Documentation/bup-fuse.md https://github.com/bup/bup/blob/master/D

Fun fact: bup has a fuse module to access saved files: https://github.com/bup/bup/blob/master/Documentation/bup-fuse.md https://github.com/bup/bup/blob/master/Documentation/bup-fus...

StavrosK 13y ago
That's pretty great, I think I will use bup when EncFUSE is done, rather than rdiff-backup. It's also very actively maintained, which is great.
- IgorPartola 13y ago
  I found rsnapshot to be far superior.
  - StavrosK 13y ago
    Interesting, in what way?
    - IgorPartola 13y ago
      It requires less wheel inventing as it is mostly declarative. It provides a higher level of abstraction vs rdiff-backup. Finally, it is more like Apple's Time Machine since t uses hardlinks to dr duplicate files. This means that you can browse all you backups in parallel and do not have to worry that one of the incremental backups being corrupt means that all subsequent ones are corrupt as well.
      - StavrosK 13y ago
        That's good to know, thank you. It looks like the only drawback is that rdiff-backup stores file diffs as well, so rsnapshot will have to store the entire file again if you change one byte in it, but, since most of my files will never change, it sounds very good for my use case, thank you.
        IgorPartola 13y ago
        Yes. Another drawback is the lack of encryption support, which may or may not be easy to work around.
        StavrosK 13y ago
        Well, I'll be using the EncFUSE script from this thread to provide the encryption, so it should be quite easy to work around it (just point it to the encrypted FUSE mountpoint).
  - bambambazooka 13y ago
    superior to bup or rdiff-backup?
    - IgorPartola 13y ago
      I did not evaluate bup beyond this statement in the readme: > This is a very early version. Therefore it will most probably not work for you, but we don't know why. It is also missing some probably-critical features. My data is worth more to me than that. However, based on the description it sounds like a more complex version of rsnapshot. rsnapshot uses rsync as the underlying protocol, and uses standard hardlinks instead of packfiles for deduplication. The nice result is that you do not need any FUSE plugin to browse full backups: they are simply stored on your normal filesystem. I did not look at how bup is configured, but will say that from the "set it and forget it" perspective, rsnapshot is very well made: a single declarative config file will suffice to back up all your servers.

Fun fact: bup has a fuse module to access saved files: https://github.com/bup/bup/blob/master/Documentation/bup-fuse.md https://github.com/bup/bup/blob/master/Documentation/bup-fus...

StavrosK 13y ago

That's pretty great, I think I will use bup when EncFUSE is done, rather than rdiff-backup. It's also very actively maintained, which is great.

IgorPartola 13y ago
I found rsnapshot to be far superior.
- StavrosK 13y ago
  Interesting, in what way?
  - IgorPartola 13y ago
    It requires less wheel inventing as it is mostly declarative. It provides a higher level of abstraction vs rdiff-backup. Finally, it is more like Apple's Time Machine since t uses hardlinks to dr duplicate files. This means that you can browse all you backups in parallel and do not have to worry that one of the incremental backups being corrupt means that all subsequent ones are corrupt as well.
    - StavrosK 13y ago
      That's good to know, thank you. It looks like the only drawback is that rdiff-backup stores file diffs as well, so rsnapshot will have to store the entire file again if you change one byte in it, but, since most of my files will never change, it sounds very good for my use case, thank you.
      - IgorPartola 13y ago
        Yes. Another drawback is the lack of encryption support, which may or may not be easy to work around.
        StavrosK 13y ago
        Well, I'll be using the EncFUSE script from this thread to provide the encryption, so it should be quite easy to work around it (just point it to the encrypted FUSE mountpoint).
- bambambazooka 13y ago
  superior to bup or rdiff-backup?
  - IgorPartola 13y ago
    I did not evaluate bup beyond this statement in the readme: > This is a very early version. Therefore it will most probably not work for you, but we don't know why. It is also missing some probably-critical features. My data is worth more to me than that. However, based on the description it sounds like a more complex version of rsnapshot. rsnapshot uses rsync as the underlying protocol, and uses standard hardlinks instead of packfiles for deduplication. The nice result is that you do not need any FUSE plugin to browse full backups: they are simply stored on your normal filesystem. I did not look at how bup is configured, but will say that from the "set it and forget it" perspective, rsnapshot is very well made: a single declarative config file will suffice to back up all your servers.