3 ms·
I played a bit with both and they both worked well. Tarsnap: easier to set up and use Duplicity: fully open source, and I think the restore speed was significa
by aquark 13y ago
I played a bit with both and they both worked well.
Tarsnap: easier to set up and use
Duplicity: fully open source, and I think the restore speed was significantly faster ... but I've not properly benchmarked it apples-to-apples.
If you are backing up a lot of frequently changing files (eg. database backups) then tarsnap's bandwidth charges (probably caused by the underlying EC2 charges) can swamp the storage cost. Running duplicity against rsync.net avoids this.
- gingerlime 13y agorestore speed was significantly faster with duplicity? I haven't used tarsnap yet, but one of my main gripes with duplicity is the rather slow restore speed. Is tarsnap even slower?
- tedunangst 13y agoDepends. tarsnap restore times should be constant regardless of which backup you pick, since it's just downloading the relevant blocks. duplicity does full backup + diffs, so if your data changes quite a bit you can end up downloading a lot of data that doesn't land on disk. (i believe that's right, not verified.)