Show HN: Saf – simple, reliable, rsync-based, battle tested, rounded backup • Hacker News Board

Show HN: Saf – simple, reliable, rsync-based, battle tested, rounded backup

#1

Post by binaryapparatus » Fri, Aug 18, 2023, 9:19 PM UTC

I had this backup code working reliably for years, using local file system, vps/dedicated server, or remote storage for backup, then I finally get time to wrap README, iron few missing switches and publish. Should be production ready and reliable, so it could be useful to others. Contributors are welcome.

https://github.com/dusanx/saf>

Show HN: Saf – simple, reliable, rsync-based, battle tested, rounded backup
github.com

Re: Show HN: Saf – simple, reliable, rsync-based, battle tested, rounded backup

#2

Post by killingtime74 » Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 2:23 AM UTC

It might be safer to use an rsync lib that calls librsync or at least wraps the calls for you. I'm always suspicious of sub-shelling

Re: Show HN: Saf – simple, reliable, rsync-based, battle tested, rounded backup

#3

Post by BigBalli » Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 2:59 AM UTC

how is it better/safer than manually using rsync?

Re: Show HN: Saf – simple, reliable, rsync-based, battle tested, rounded backup

#4

Post by sureglymop » Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 6:31 AM UTC

Have a look at restic for a good alternative to this.

Re: Show HN: Saf – simple, reliable, rsync-based, battle tested, rounded backup

#5

Post by pmontra » Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 6:47 AM UTC

Why not rsnapshot? I've been using it to backup servers to servers for a lot years.

Re: Show HN: Saf – simple, reliable, rsync-based, battle tested, rounded backup

#6

Post by tetris11 » Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 7:26 AM UTC

sureglymop wrote: post #4

Have a look at restic for a good alternative to this.

Resric is great but the lack of empty passwords, and the response by the developer about it is very grating:

https://github.com/restic/restic/issues/1786

Re: Show HN: Saf – simple, reliable, rsync-based, battle tested, rounded backup

#7

Post by paddim8 » Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 7:36 AM UTC

sureglymop wrote: post #4

Have a look at restic for a good alternative to this.

Typical HN to immediately tell everyone to use something else when someone posts something they spent time and effort on making, just because it's not 100% unique

Re: Show HN: Saf – simple, reliable, rsync-based, battle tested, rounded backup

#8

Post by __fst__ » Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 7:50 AM UTC

paddim8 wrote: post #7

sureglymop wrote: post #4

Have a look at restic for a good alternative to this.

Typical HN to immediately tell everyone to use something else when someone posts something they spent time and effort on making, just because it's not 100% unique

These alternative recommendations are exactly what I'm looking for when browsing the comments.

Re: Show HN: Saf – simple, reliable, rsync-based, battle tested, rounded backup

#9

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 7:56 AM UTC

sureglymop wrote: post #4

Have a look at restic for a good alternative to this.

[deleted]

Re: Show HN: Saf – simple, reliable, rsync-based, battle tested, rounded backup

#10

Post by binaryapparatus » Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 8:31 AM UTC

__fst__ wrote: post #8

paddim8 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typical HN to immediately tell everyone to use something else when someone posts something they spent time and effort on making, just because it's not 100% unique

These alternative recommendations are exactly what I'm looking for when browsing the comments.

Author here. Yes, I am also the one that loves to see alternatives on topic of interest to me on HN. However putting an effort to publish different take on something already 'solved' is either because I want my own solution no matter what (I don't) or because other solutions didn't fully cover all my use cases (they didn't). I would gladly use somebody else code instead of my own, if that was possible.

Two scripts linked at the bottom of README.md are almost perfect and I used one or another for years, but one of them sometimes misses to hard link with previous backup, creating new full backup and wasting resources -- not something that's easy to detect since they all look correct before 'du' or similar analysis.

saf solves few of the problems I faced during the years in a elegant way: multiple targets, target related commands, reliability. Why not XY? Why not saf?