Google Cloud Storage options

[saspus]

@towerbr

I guess I could use a filter with restore if needed.

You can’t — because Duplicacy mixes metadata chunks and data chunks in the same pile. If it didn’t — we could set different access classes on prefixes, storing metadata in hot storage and data in glacier. Then you could list files, do all metadata work, and when you want to restore, duplicacy would request thawing only of necessary data chunks, and ask you to come back later and then restore. That’s what Arq is doing. It’s feasible. It’s doable. It exists in the wild. I don’t know why it is not done in duplicacy still (other priorities, “why don’t you submit PR then”, etc, I understand )

@towerbr

is not intended for restoration.

Good point.

@towerbr

3-2-1-1-0

Whoa. Where did those numbers creep from?

I downgraded my acceptable data storage policy for super-duper important data to 2-1. My main copy of data, and my offsite backup.

If stars align and I lose data so be it. Probably I will. have more pressing needs showering all that ash anyway to worry about some data.

[towerbr]

@saspus

@towerbr

I guess I could use a filter with restore if needed.

You can’t

I’ve already done some tests with pattern and it worked perfectly, it only restored selected files:

Unlike the backup procedure that reading the include/exclude patterns from a file, the restore procedure reads them from the command line. If the patterns can cause confusion to the command line argument parser, -- should be prepended to the patterns. Please refer to the Include/Exclude Patterns section for how to specify patterns. (restore · gilbertchen/duplicacy Wiki · GitHub)

But I completely agree about the approach of separating data and metadata chunks.

@saspus

@towerbr

3-2-1-1-0

Whoa. Where did those numbers creep from?

A good explanation:

What’s the Diff: 3-2-1 vs. 3-2-1-1-0 vs. 4-3-2

[saspus]

@towerbr

I’ve already done some tests with pattern and it worked perfectly, it only restored selected files:

It worked because your chunks were cached locally. It won’t work if you try to actually restore from glacier.

@towerbr

A good explanation:

That’s an ad, to sell you bb cloud replication, not a source of advice. They debunk their own wild claims in the same article saying that object lock is all you need pretty much. But they like money, so it’s buried in the depth of the article.

[towerbr]

@saspus

It worked because your chunks were cached locally. It won’t work if you try to actually restore from glacier.

I hadn’t thought of that, I’ll do some more testing.

@saspus

That’s an ad, to sell you bb cloud replication, not a source of advice.

Sure, if you search the term on Google, the top results are mostly backup tools and storage platforms. However, I still believe it’s a great complement to the classic 3-2-1 backup strategy.