| ▲ | dathinab 5 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
it's expensive but it doesn't have a monthly base cost, doesn't require you to run a server etc. through you want at least one backup of yours to be off site, and your want your backups robust, so comparing hard drive cost seem strange as if you run the backup server yourself you need a decent raid and for the offline backup you need to compare with idk. S3 storage cost or similar it's still more expensive but if you only need to backup some folders of documents or similar it might anyway be the simpler and cheaper solution if you want to backup huge photo/video/vm image collections it probably isn't the best choice for you but if you need to backup you photo | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | homebrewer 5 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
A hard drive under the bed is not the only alternative to tarsnap, you can use any of its numerous competitors that are also maintained by professionals, whose whole business is also running a backup service. Say rsync.net or borgbase, which are at least 10× cheaper than tarsnap last time I compared them, and can be used with restic or borg which are much faster at restoring even relatively small amounts data (forget if we're talking terabytes, it's "weeks" vs "your link speed"). I think tarsnap was a good service about 20 years ago when it had little competition, but using it now makes very little sense IMHO. You can donate to its awesome FreeBSD maintainer, or to FreeBSD, directly. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||