Re: What is rsyncrypto good for?
Brought to you by:
thesun
Menu
▾
▴
Re: What is rsyncrypto good for?
|
From: Shachar S. <sh...@sh...> - 2019-11-09 16:52:25
|
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css">body p { margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-top: 0pt; } </style>
</head>
<body bidimailui-charset-is-forced="true" text="#000000"
bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/11/2019 16:37, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:hg...@an...">hg...@an...</a>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3f0...@ww...">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<title></title>
<style type="text/css">#qt p{margin-bottom:0cm;margin-top:0pt;}
p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style>
<div style="font-family:Arial;">I see three issues:<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Arial;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Arial;">Encrypting your files makes it
more likely you'll totally lose them by losing the encryption
keys. After a successful natural disaster caused recovery of
rsyncrypto encrypted files, I decided what I was storing was not
sensitive enough to justify that danger.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I think that's the only point you made I actually disagree with.
Rsyncrypto was built so that you can recover your entire data set
using a single private key that need not be updated. Just make
sure you store that securely (say, on a DoK in a safe, or
whatever), and you can lose the entire local data and still
recover everything.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>You can even post the private key, password protected, to the
same place you back everything else up.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3f0...@ww...">
<div style="font-family:Arial;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Arial;">Not having an on the fly mode ...
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
but, on the other hand<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3f0...@ww...">
<div style="font-family:Arial;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Arial;">To where do you backup your data
offsite? rsync.net is great, but relatively expensive at rest
compared to object store cloud offerings like AWS S3's lower
classes and Glacier, Backblaze B2, Azure's archival offerings,
etc. Rclone would appear to be the equivalent program for
those, with its own limitations, including greater bandwidth
use.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>But on the fly mode would, pretty much by necessity, be
incompatible with current rsync. This means that even fewer backup
providers would be eligible.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>When originally written, rsyncrypto was meant to be the
technological side of a backup service I intended on running. On
the fly would have been acceptable there (but would have reduced
its usability to everyone else). The power of open source is that
the technology lives on where the business has failed, but I guess
even that has its own limits.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3f0...@ww...">
<div style="font-family:Arial;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Arial;">Ah, that brings up a 4th:
rsync/rsyncrypto shines for files that have small portions
changing, like log files, but today for many if not most users
that's minuscule compared to media files that don't get
changed. Compare to people with only a few computers to back up
not finding deduplication compelling, because storage and
bandwidth costs and capacities have changed so much.<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Arial;"><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Like I said, the world has moved on. I accept it. It's why you're
not seeing new versions coming out.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Shachar</p>
</body>
</html>
|
