4 ms·
A few years ago I looked at about 30 different backup solutions and finally settled on CrashPlan for the following reasons: 1. Can send backups local drive, cl
by jonathanoliver 12y ago
A few years ago I looked at about 30 different backup solutions and finally settled on CrashPlan for the following reasons:
1. Can send backups local drive, cloud, or P2P.
2. Encrypts files locally
3. Incremental/delta, e.g. a 5-byte change to a 10GB file doesn't resend the whole thing.
A lot of the named services from the OP are cloud only. Try backing up TBs of data. It'll take over a month, depending upon internet connection speed.
CrashPlan lets you backup to an attached hard drive and then send it to them in the mail (sneakernet). Then, when you want to restore the entire archive, they can send you a drive in the mail if you'd like.
The one place CrashPlan falls down is doing full-disk backups or images/snapshots. It's only good for backups of individual files.
I've got a copy of CrashPlan running on my DS212+ NAS (http://pcloadletter.co.uk/2012/01/30/crashplan-syno-package/ http://pcloadletter.co.uk/2012/01/30/crashplan-syno-package/) so it serves as a peer and I push to the cloud as well.
- gh02t 12y agoI second this. Crashplan is a great service with very generous pricing, considering that you get unlimited space and file versioning. You can run it directly on the machine you're backing up, but I have mine on my Linux home server in a headless setup. All my computers back up to it via Bacula, which is then backed up via Crashplan.