Why not just use restic directly to back up?

That was my plan, but restic doesn't do compression so that would increase costs and backup time.

Some use-cases, like photo libraries, won't benefit much from compression, so I may use restic directly for those.

Rclone only uploads/overrides the remote if the meta-data (size/date/etc) shows a difference. Most disk corruption doesn't change these so it still works as a corruption backup.

I'm worried, in part, about files getting deleted. If I delete or otherwise lose my repository, rclone will helpfully delete it on the other side. Some amount of deletion is expected, like when borg prunes the old stuff out, so having rclone not delete anything might not be an option either.

I'm sure there are ways to manage this though, I just haven't figured them out yet.

Ah, looking more close, I'm just using rclone to put the backups on B2. So first I do a backup to a local drive, then I run `borg with-local ... rclone sync ...`.

Ah, ok. That's basically what I'm doing, except I'm using restic instead of rclone.

I've done borg for local backups for a while and figured I could just replace it with restic, then I discovered that restic doesn't do compression so I just pointed that at the borg repositories.

I'll probably use restic directly for things that don't benefit from compression and continue to use borg for things that do.

I'm open to better options though, layering two tools that basically do the same thing seems like a bit of a hack job.