21–30 of 53 posts
Sounds nice. Just too bad the contents of my NAS would cost $700 a month to keep on s3.
I was thinking of adding Pogoplug support. That way storage would be much cheaper, although backing up to a Pogoplug at a friend's house may be much less reliable than backing up to S3. Would anyone be interested in this?
I'm confused how this product can charge so much more than JungleDisk but not really do anything different? Is there a difference I'm missing?
Also Arq is a lot simpler to use. I really need to put up a screencast to show that.
This page could really benefit from a screenshot or if you're feeling adventurous, a screencast. I don't want to commit to downloading this app without seeing how it functions. I understand it lets me back up to S3, but how? I dare say if you add these images, your conversion rates will skyrocket. Assuming this is your site, anyway.
You're probably (hopefully?) right. It was on my list, but maybe I'll move it to the top of my list.
One of backup-bouncer's tests is called "combo-tests" where it tests several different file metadata types on the same file. Carbonite didn't restore this file at all.
Instead, Carbonite left a file called "Carbonite_Restore_F161_G1.tmp". It's a 1-line text file that reads "gotta boogie".
I had Mozy and I used their built-in encryption to backup ~250GB. I went to restore some wedding photos while at my parents' house, so I downloaded their decryption utility, and started the decryption of a 10gb subset of my backup. Only about 1/3rd of the files decrypted correctly. The rest of the files were totally corrupted -- not cool. I contacted support and we investigated the problem for ~3 months. Luckily I di…
You were paying for not worrying about whether you would lose your data. And that's exactly what Mozy gave you... at least until you discovered the corruption. :-)
As the author of Tarsnap, I'm a bit biased, so I'm going to refrain from comparing the two; but I have one question for the author: Aren't S3 per-request fees a problem? One of the reasons I have all Tarsnap data go through the Tarsnap server is to allow me to "bundle" blocks together and amortize per-PUT costs.
1) Arq packs small files (under 64k) together into "packs", a bit like git does. So instead of thousands of PUTs of tiny files (which would also be very slow) it does fewer larger PUTs.
2) Arq caches indexes of those pack files locally, and caches the list of larger S3 objects as well. So it doesn't have to do a GET to figure out whether an object with a given SHA1 is already in the S3 account. (Arq stores every object by its SHA1 hash, like git does).
The file format is open (it's your data after all): http://www.haystacksoftware.com/arq/s3_data_format.txt