New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Opinions on Tarsnap
Just wondering if anyone is using this for backup and what they think about it. Sounds like it would be a good way to go if you have lots of redundant data. Apparently it strips all that out at the block level and doesn't have the limitations that incremental backups have such as requiring the initial backup.
http://www.tarsnap.com/
Comments
Yes but, while removing redundancies, will still download everything which is not redundant, while incremental backups, of any kind will only save what is changed.
So if you have little space and lots of traffic, go with tarsnap, if you have lots of space and low traffic, go with incremental backups.
Tarsnap uses a local cache to make the backups so I don't know if you would have to download the whole thing. Maybe only if you no longer have the cache. Like if you HD died but you would also have to download the whole thing with incremental too.
If the disk dies, local cache is irrelevant, you can only recover the data from the remote location or from another local disk if the backup was done locally, but this wasnt about a local backup, right ?
I used it when looking at less resource-intensive alternatives to Idera. It works great but you have the usual limitations with anything that isn't MySQL or generally application-aware. Ended up getting an even better deal with R1soft and just upgrading the server to suit.
Did you forget your glasses or just read the first few words I wrote?
The only situations you will need a back-up are when the disk died and when you need to recover from some screwup (bad update deleted something you shouldnt, things like those).
I mostly need the backup after the disk died or provider died. In that case local cache is irrelevant.
As is bandwidth saved on incremental. Just go away with your contradictory nonsense.