Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Duplicacy: Lock-free deduplication cloud backup tool, with “fair source” license

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 72 posts

Re: Duplicacy: Lock-free deduplication cloud backup tool, with “fair source” license

#61

Post by dom0 »

hysan wrote: post #58
kefka wrote: post #27

Reported to Github, as Commercial software masquerading as various open free license projects (MIT, GPL, BSD, etc.). Also, intentional namespace pollution with existing backup tool, which IS gpl'ed. Not cool. Not cool at all. ____________________________________ (response, since I'm submitting 'too fast'... ): Github has commercial repos, and private repos. It's pretty simple, really. If you want the free options on…

> Here's a few names I just devised: ClouDuplicate , Clouder, DupliCloud, CfC (cloud file cloud).. Or you know, since it's written in Go, how about GoDuplicate, GoBackup, etc. I like giving people the benefit of the doubt, but it's just so similar and they have so many obvious pun options that even the most uncreative person probably would have come up with a more unique name.

"bup - I can't believe no-one had this idea earlier!"

Re: Duplicacy: Lock-free deduplication cloud backup tool, with “fair source” license

#62

Post by acrosync »

kefka wrote: post #27

Reported to Github, as Commercial software masquerading as various open free license projects (MIT, GPL, BSD, etc.). Also, intentional namespace pollution with existing backup tool, which IS gpl'ed. Not cool. Not cool at all. ____________________________________ (response, since I'm submitting 'too fast'... ): Github has commercial repos, and private repos. It's pretty simple, really. If you want the free options on…

The name and the license are two separate issues.

I agree the name is confusing, however this is not intentional. As I explained in the other comment, I chose duplicacy because the domain name was available and this is a very good name for a backup tool (even better than duplicity).

I chose this fair source license because this is basically the only free-for-personal-use license. Many people here ask why I didn't go with a free license like GPL. Here is why. I believe software should be free for personal users, but I don't like for-profit companies using it for free. This software can potentially help companies solve a painful everyday problem (and therefore make more money) and yet there isn't a license to require them to pay if they don't distribute the software. In my opinion, this is extremely unfair to independent developers like me.

Re: Duplicacy: Lock-free deduplication cloud backup tool, with “fair source” license

#63

Post by acrosync »

voiper1 wrote: post #35

Can someone explain how it's able to make small updates, e.g. to s3? How does it know what's already there -- cache? How does it prune old chunks -- will there be tons of individual API requests to S3?

We use a pack-and-split approach -- files are packed first (as if it is building a big tar file first, although this is only conceptual) and then split into chunks using a variable-sized chunking algorithm. You can customize the chunk size but by default the average chunk size is 4MB so you won't be uploading too much small files.

Re: Duplicacy: Lock-free deduplication cloud backup tool, with “fair source” license

#64

Post by [deleted] »

acrosync wrote: post #62
kefka wrote: post #27

Reported to Github, as Commercial software masquerading as various open free license projects (MIT, GPL, BSD, etc.). Also, intentional namespace pollution with existing backup tool, which IS gpl'ed. Not cool. Not cool at all. ____________________________________ (response, since I'm submitting 'too fast'... ): Github has commercial repos, and private repos. It's pretty simple, really. If you want the free options on…

The name and the license are two separate issues. I agree the name is confusing, however this is not intentional. As I explained in the other comment, I chose duplicacy because the domain name was available and this is a very good name for a backup tool (even better than duplicity). I chose this fair source license because this is basically the only free-for-personal-use license. Many people here ask why I didn't go…

[deleted]

Re: Duplicacy: Lock-free deduplication cloud backup tool, with “fair source” license

#65

Post by Mister_Snuggles »

StavrosK wrote: post #52
Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #31

For about the last year or so I've been looking for an online backup system with the following requirements: - Off-site storage, preferably not costing too much. - Option for on-site storage (e.g., to store a backup "in the cloud" and on my NAS) - Keeps version history, with the associated goodies (purging old backups, etc) - Able to run on FreeBSD and Linux, with Windows and MacOS being nice to have but not required…

You just need Borg. Here's a post I wrote about it (as you say, Borg and rsync.net): https://www.stavros.io/posts/holy-grail-backups/ I have posted it to maybe help a few people who want to do backups: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14507656

I currently use Attic for backups going to onto my NAS, so one plus for attic/borg is familiarity. I figure that if I'm going to go with rsync.net, I'll switch to borg since it's (as you point out) better maintained.

Are you using rsync.net's "hidden" attic/borg option? This makes the price very attractive.

You mention using "attic check" to guard against bitrot on the provider's storage. How is this in terms of bandwidth used? Does it have to transfer every byte or does it compute a checksum on the encrypted data (since rsync.net doesn't have the raw data) and just send that?

Re: Duplicacy: Lock-free deduplication cloud backup tool, with “fair source” license

#66

Post by dom0 »

Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #65
StavrosK wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just need Borg. Here's a post I wrote about it (as you say, Borg and rsync.net): https://www.stavros.io/posts/holy-grail-backups/ I have posted it to maybe help a few people who want to do backups: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14507656

I currently use Attic for backups going to onto my NAS, so one plus for attic/borg is familiarity. I figure that if I'm going to go with rsync.net, I'll switch to borg since it's (as you point out) better maintained. Are you using rsync.net's "hidden" attic/borg option? This makes the price very attractive. You mention using "attic check" to guard against bitrot on the provider's storage. How is this in terms of band…

(attic) borg check --repository-only does not transfer any data except informational logs. This is CRC32 only [1]. Borg 1.1 beta has borg check --verify-data, which does full decryption & full MAC + ID checks -- by downloading all data.

Generally speaking, attic has at least one data corruption bug fixed in Borg that make it unsafe to use with remote repositories unless the SSH connection is 100% stable. Attic also has another similar bug that corrupts the created archive when it encounters an I/O error in the repository.

There is a "Migrating from Attic" "sales pitch" (if you like) in the beta docs (-- switch versions in the lower left corner for stable docs): http://borgbackup.readthedocs.io/en/latest/faq.html#migratin...

[1] and of course checksumming and error correction of the file system, if any. Since rsync.net is ZFS the --repository-only check is a stronger than on a plain old file system with no checksums.

Re: Duplicacy: Lock-free deduplication cloud backup tool, with “fair source” license

#67

Post by coverband »

kefka wrote: post #27

Reported to Github, as Commercial software masquerading as various open free license projects (MIT, GPL, BSD, etc.). Also, intentional namespace pollution with existing backup tool, which IS gpl'ed. Not cool. Not cool at all. ____________________________________ (response, since I'm submitting 'too fast'... ): Github has commercial repos, and private repos. It's pretty simple, really. If you want the free options on…

Wait, I thought this submission was for Duplicati (https://www.duplicati.com/), which I used (very happily I might add) in the past for cloud backups of my server to S3.

Re: Duplicacy: Lock-free deduplication cloud backup tool, with “fair source” license

#68

Post by heypete »

Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #42
lfowles wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you looked at crashplan? Although I can't say I've tried running it on FreeBSD...

I haven't looked at Crashplan in detail yet, though one of my co-workers uses it for his Macs and is happy with it. A quick Google search gives me the feeling that it runs under FreeBSD's Linux emulation and the port seems to break occasionally. I could run it on a real Linux in a VM on FreeBSD though, so that's a potential option.

I use CrashPlan on Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X. Works great for me. Saved my bacon a few times (e.g. accidentally deleting my wedding photos, tax information, etc.). Worth checking out.

(Disclosure: I'm a paying customer of CrashPlan, but otherwise have no connection with the service.)

Re: Duplicacy: Lock-free deduplication cloud backup tool, with “fair source” license

#69

Post by StavrosK »

Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #65
StavrosK wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just need Borg. Here's a post I wrote about it (as you say, Borg and rsync.net): https://www.stavros.io/posts/holy-grail-backups/ I have posted it to maybe help a few people who want to do backups: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14507656

I currently use Attic for backups going to onto my NAS, so one plus for attic/borg is familiarity. I figure that if I'm going to go with rsync.net, I'll switch to borg since it's (as you point out) better maintained. Are you using rsync.net's "hidden" attic/borg option? This makes the price very attractive. You mention using "attic check" to guard against bitrot on the provider's storage. How is this in terms of band…

> Are you using rsync.net's "hidden" attic/borg option? This makes the price very attractive.

I am, yes, and it is quite attractive.

> You mention using "attic check" to guard against bitrot on the provider's storage. How is this in terms of bandwidth used? Does it have to transfer every byte or does it compute a checksum on the encrypted data (since rsync.net doesn't have the raw data) and just send that?

It's very bandwidth-efficient, but I have stopped doing that every day, as rsync.net told me they use ZFS and scrub their arrays regularly, so they would discover bit rot early. I only run the check once a month now.

Re: Duplicacy: Lock-free deduplication cloud backup tool, with “fair source” license

#70

Post by yellowapple »

kefka wrote: post #27

Reported to Github, as Commercial software masquerading as various open free license projects (MIT, GPL, BSD, etc.). Also, intentional namespace pollution with existing backup tool, which IS gpl'ed. Not cool. Not cool at all. ____________________________________ (response, since I'm submitting 'too fast'... ): Github has commercial repos, and private repos. It's pretty simple, really. If you want the free options on…

IIRC, GitHub doesn't actually impose any restrictions on what license you choose. Their ToS does grant GitHub the right to redistribute your code (for obvious reasons), among other things around GitHub's fork-and-PR model, beyond whatever licensing terms you've chosen. Valve, for example, publishes portions of their Source Engine on GitHub with a non-free license, and I'm pretty sure there are GitHub repos with CC-BY-ND-NC-whatever licenses for various non-code assets.

I don't think this is against the spirit of GitHub, either. I ain't GitHub, though, so that opinion is by no means authoritative.

All this is different from, say, SourceForge, where using SourceForge to host your code did (does?) require licensing your code under a FOSS license.

----

Regardless, still scummy to take a name so close to an existing actually-FOSS project with similar goals. Additionally scummy to call the license "fair" (if it ain't free, it ain't fair), though that's probably not the developer's fault.

Post reply on HN