This commit is contained in:
parent
51751f68f7
commit
d5bc8a4790
1 changed files with 28 additions and 0 deletions
|
@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
|
|||
I've been wondering about using `git-annex` and `bup` together - but _not_ with `bup` as the backend, but rather backing up `bup` repos using `git-annex`.
|
||||
|
||||
Let me try to explain...
|
||||
|
||||
* `bup` is a a great deduplicating backup tool, but it does not have encryption
|
||||
* `git-annex` is a awesome in so many ways. Including 1) multiple copies, 2) encryption
|
||||
|
||||
(I know the following reads like the motivation for `git-annex`, but let me add the word **backup**)
|
||||
|
||||
* Recovering large backups over the internet can be costly and time consuming
|
||||
* Local copies are fast, but are risky
|
||||
|
||||
So I was wondering about having my `bup` repos in `git-annex`, with multiple copies, including, say, an encrypted S3 bucket and some local copies.
|
||||
|
||||
Then, if I had a problem and needed to restore I could use my local copies for as much as I could and then only pull part of the backup from the complete remote backup.
|
||||
|
||||
If that all works, I then have:
|
||||
|
||||
1. A more complicated process than a simple backup tool :-(
|
||||
2. Multiple complete backups available :-D
|
||||
3. Encrypted, offsite backups :-D
|
||||
4. Small transfers (`bup` uses the awesomness of `git` to dedup the hell out of your data) :-D
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
I've not done this yet, but was thinking it through.
|
||||
|
||||
Can anyone share some opinions, thoughts, concerns or high-5s for the awesomeness of my idea? ;-)
|
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue