[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Duplicity-talk] Using duplicity w/o local cache folder
From: |
edgar . soldin |
Subject: |
Re: [Duplicity-talk] Using duplicity w/o local cache folder |
Date: |
Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:41:28 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 |
On 13.10.2014 16:17, Manuel Strehl wrote:
>
> 1. why use duplicity if you neither need encryption nor uploading to
> remote storage?
>
> I use it mainly for ease of making incremental backups of my computer's main
> drive. Much like OSX users use their time machine thingy. Think poor man's
> VCS of (most of) the PC's hard-disk.
>
in this case i'd use a snapshotable filesystem (e.g. btrfs) plus rsync.. this
has the advantage that you work on a filesystem level with direct access to
your backup.
i heard obnam works well as well.
another alternative would be rsnapshot.
> 2. even mobile harddrives are lost, stolen or eventually discarded. all
> in all a good reason to encrypt.
>
> True, but the external drive is stationary right next to my PC. (Of course,
> when the house burns down, both are lost. The backup is not used for data
> safety in this scenario, see above.)
what about somebody steals only the harddrive?
or the harddrive malfunctions, you cannot delete it and you'll have to discard
it.
> That's the reason, why the ever-increasing cache folder is something I'd love
> to get rid of. (When I use duplicity to encrypt and back-up data to cloud
> storage, this is of course not the case.)
another reason not to use duplicity in your case. there are better alternatives
for your use case.
..ede/duply.net