[Top][All Lists]

[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 

> 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.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]