News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Timeshift: System Restore Tool for Linux by bongobingo1 on Tuesday July 23, 2024 @01:32AM (#41042822)
Do you have much of an opinion on why you went with Restic over Borg? The single Go binary is an obvious one, perhaps that alone is enough. I remember some people having un-bound memory usage with Restic but that might have been a very old version.
Re:Timeshift: System Restore Tool for Linux by dsissitka on Tuesday July 23, 2024 @03:27AM (#41043522)
Re:Timeshift: System Restore Tool for Linux by _flux on Tuesday July 23, 2024 @06:35AM (#41044571)
This was basically one big reason why I went with https://kopia.io . The other might have been its native S3 support.
Re:Timeshift: System Restore Tool for Linux by hashworks on Tuesday July 23, 2024 @01:47AM (#41042897)
I use both, and I never had problems with any of them. Restic has the advantage that it supports a lot more endpoints than ssh/borg, f.e. S3 (or anything that rclone supports). Also borg might be a little bit more complicated to get started with than restic.
Re:Timeshift: System Restore Tool for Linux by pixelmonkey on Tuesday July 23, 2024 @07:29AM (#41044864)
For me, these traits made restic initially attractive:

- encrypted, chunk-deduped, snapshotted backups

- single Go binary, so I could even backup the binary used to create my backups

- reasonable versioning and release scheme

- I could read, and understand, its design document: https://github.com/restic/restic/blob/master/doc/design.rst

I then just tried using it for a year and never hit any issues with it, so kept going, and now it's 6+ years later.

Re:Timeshift: System Restore Tool for Linux by marcus0x62 on Tuesday July 23, 2024 @07:42AM (#41044937)
I use both to try to mitigate the risk of losing data due to a backup format/program bug[1]. If I wasn't worried about that, I'd probably go with Borg but only because my offsite backup provider can be made to enforce append-only backups with Borg, but not Restic, at least not that I could find.[2]

1 - some of my first experiences with backup failures were due to media problems -- this was back in the days when "backup" pretty much meant "pipe tar to tape" and while the backup format was simple, tape quality was pretty bad. These days, media -- tape or disk -- is much more reliable, but backup formats are much more complex, with encryption, data de-dup, etc. Therefore, I consider the backup format to be at least as much of a risk to me now as the media. So, anyway, I do two backups: the local one uses restic, the cloud backup uses borg.

2 - I use rsync.net, which I generally like a lot. I wrote up my experiences with append-only backups, including what I did to make them work with rsync.net here: https://marcusb.org/posts/ransomware-resistant-backups/

Re:Timeshift: System Restore Tool for Linux by electroly on Wednesday July 24, 2024 @02:58AM (#41054292)
I choose restic over borg for the simple reason that restic can back up directly to S3-compatible cloud storage and borg can't. Commodity S3-compatible storage is cheaper than borg-compatible cloud storage. I back up to both B2 ($0.006/GB) and S3 (Intelligent Tiering, ~$0.004/GB) and the two combined are still cheaper than rsync.net ($0.012/GB). I don't see that borg is any better than restic, so this seems to be a straightforward win to me. I'd trust restic with my life. It's among the highest quality software I've ever used.