#INSTALL DUPLICACY CLI ONLY FREE SOFTWARE#
#INSTALL DUPLICACY CLI ONLY FREE CODE#
#INSTALL DUPLICACY CLI ONLY FREE LICENSE#
#INSTALL DUPLICACY CLI ONLY FREE FREE#

Today I would probably recommend ZFS - but I've always wanted to give NILFS2 a real test, especially on solid-state disks: It's a bit complicated to set it up for separate encrypt-to and signing keys though :/

#INSTALL DUPLICACY CLI ONLY FREE FREE#

It's one of the few Free alternatives that allow the backup-system to encrypt 'one-way' - so that compromising the backup-system doesn't immediately give read access to encrypted backups. Personally I've had some luck using backupninja in combination with duplicity.

I wonder if there's some low-hanging fruit for optimization there. Perhaps in combination with a checksumming tool, like, or with a filesystem like ZFS.ДЄlso, it can be difficult in a lot of environments to sustain more than 100mbps write to a remote, off-site system - halving the stored data can be a much bigger win then.ДЄll that said, it's interesting to see that a) duplicity seems slow, and b) very consistent in terms of speed. It's a little odd to not benchmark backup over the network - a backup taken to the same physical disk as the source of the data isn't very useful - for that use-case taking a filesystem snapshot would probably be faster and more useful. I can't deduce how the last part follows (', but.'). > Again, by not computing the file hash helped improve the performance, but at the risk of possible undetected data corruption. There are 'borg diff' (to compare two archives) and 'borg mount -o versions' as well, though the latter is generally impractical for looking at a large number of archives. To be fair, Borg can calculate a variety of file hashes (MD5, SHA1, SHA2. They also allow third-party tools to compare files on disks to those in the backups. > For instance, file hashes enable users to quickly identify which files in existing backups are changed.

Besides CPU time, memory (peak) usage would be interesting.

restic's deduplication performance might hint at Rabin Fingerprints being worse than Buzhash, but there might be other issue(s) leading to this result. I don't mean to bash, I'm just surprised. and Borg is already notoriously inefficient in it's CPU usage when looking at object throughput (restic: 'fast, efficient'?). It uses far more CPU than Borg in almost all tests. I'm really surprised at restic's performance. For a network-based test, not only time is interesting, but total RX/TX as well. This is of course difficult because these tend to be bad on reproducibility. a typical fast internet connection (say 100/40 or 50/20 MBit/s) with a few dozen ms latency to some server or cloud service. My two (possibly biased, much like the author's) cents.

#INSTALL DUPLICACY CLI ONLY FREE LICENSE#

You of course have the right to choose any license you like! I just wouldn't use duplicacy myself under the terms of that license.

#INSTALL DUPLICACY CLI ONLY FREE SOFTWARE#

As it stands, you may at any point stop accepting license payments from a commercial user and they'd lose the right to use it entirely - they'd lose access to their backups (unless they used the software without a license). I can't even, say, create a package for it and get it included in Debian.ДЄnd aside from some of these practical issues, I'm a personal user who supports software freedom so I don't want to use something encumbered in this way.ДЄnd as a commercial user, any development contributions I make are no longer my own and I have to pay to make use of them.Д«ut the worst part of it is, your license isn't very well defined.

#INSTALL DUPLICACY CLI ONLY FREE CODE#

I'd lose rights to any development contributions I might have made unless I pay.ДЄnd as a personal user, I can't use any code from Duplicacy in any other project. It matters to me as a personal user because my use of duplicacy might change at some point and suddenly I'd lose rights to use it (unless I pay).

Install duplicacy cli only free