Skip to content

my notes #18

@sbuller

Description

@sbuller

I went through the links you provided here (thank you), and thought I'd share my notes. I make no promises of any sort of consistency; the things that stuck out to me are no doubt related to my individual requirements and views. I mostly stuck to items from the existing list that didn't have any tags besides 'review'.

I noted a couple properties that I summarize here for brevity in the later list:
dbsrc - backup a database by properly dumping its data, rather than simply copying its files.
repo - rather than creating separate archives (tarball or similar), the program operates on a repository/store. Highly correlated with (proper) dedup.

Arqinator - just a reader for backups produced by the proprietary Arq
backshift - dedup, compression, expiration, python, source in svn*
backup - ruby, dbsrc, remote dst, no-dedup, no-incremental, sync, notification
backup2l - heirarchical incremental tarballs, https://github.com/gkiefer/backup2l, shell script
backuppc - perl, file-dedup (not block dedup), admin interface/daemon, client/server
Backups-Done-Right - proposal, no code
bareos - client/server, fork of bacula, incremental
boxbackup - c++, client/server, continuous
btar - c, complicated build around tarballs
btrbk - perl, btrfs, encryption
burp - c, client/server, compression, dedup, librsync deltas, configurable retention
chop-backup - c, 'beta', not active
dar - pre-github scm, differential, compression, encryption, checksums, multi-archive
ddar - dedup, repo*, unmaintained, c/python
deltaic - python, single author, low activity, script over lvm thin pools
duplicity - librsync, active, encryption, incremental tarballs
fwbackups - gui, tar, rsync, maintenance only
frost - dedup, compression, encryption, single dev, low activity, c++, no built in xfer**
hashbackup - dedup, compression, encryption, unpruned repo, proprietary/no source
kebab - inactive (2015)
knoxite - golang, single dev, encryption, dedup, backend sharding, repo, missing docs
obnam - repo, dedup, encryption, sftp, python, c?, repo, single tier pruning strategy
ori - not targeted at backup, p2p, slow development, c++
pukcab - repo, dedup, compression, ssh, retention schedules, web interface (client/server?), single dev, moderately active, '[enthusiast grade]'
rdedup - dedup, encryption, compression, rust, moderate activity, beta
scat - decentralized storage, dedup, erasure codes, checksums, multiple copies, toolbox approach
rsnapshot - hard link dedup, perl, active
shield - dbsrc,
snaprd - single dev, golang, pruning, hardlink dedup
snebu - client/server, compression, file-level dedup, data expiration, c, single dev, low activity
s3git - golang, dedup, distributed, inactive
storeBackup - 'CVS' level inactivity
ugarit - fossil required to view source, no recent release, dedup
unison - no snapshots just synchronization
urBackup - client/server, web ui, file dedup, c, commercial version
veb - golang, abandoned
zbackup - dedup, compression, encryption, c++, sporadic development
zpaq - repo, dedup, compression, checksum, revision control by zip file? 😱

* this is a thing I care about—projects on github are much easier to evaluate for maturity and activity

** The degree to which designs take a local or remote approach varies significantly. For my purposes I want to have remotes that pull data from an intermediary which has access to the source data, and so not having any built in facility for managing remote backends isn't necessarily worse than anything else. Ideally (I think) I'd have a client on the remotes which could see only encrypted data, but could selectively download (shard), and prune old data using limited unencrypted metadata. But that's neither here nor there.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions