It’s nice and frequently requested feature on duplicacy forums. Generally, on paper, there are a lot of compelling features that build on what duplicacy does and move that forward.īackup configuration is stored on the destinationĪbility to mount backup history as a virtual drive. I admit, it could have been my fault, but that never happened with duplicacy, and it should not have been that easy to accomplish for a novice user.Īpproach to deduplication is indeed similar. Only compatibility (migration from) with previous version is promised, and as expected with software version 0.xxx any breaking changes can happen any time.ĭuring my time trying Kopia with local SFTP storage I managed to corrupt the datastore twice, both cases failed to recover. a set of snapshots), for example - maybe it's not even possible?) and for all its pretty graphs, Duplicacy doesn't really tell me anything useful either.Ĭontext: long time Duplicacy user here, and tried Kopia recently for a month.įor production use Kopia is not even a contender - it is still alpha.
#Duplicacy restore include exclude examples how to
Unfortunately both products have so little status information about what they're up to that it's fairly hard to quickly compare this stuff (I'm yet to figure out how to even get the entire size of a backup set in Kopia (i.e.
Duplicacy makes a big fuss about being the first and only backup program to de-duplicate all backup sets sent to the same destination (lock free deduplication they call it) - but as far as I can tell, Kopia will also do this? Is this correct? Anyone know how they compare in this regard? Specifically, I'm trying to figure out how their de-duplication and compression performance compares (when using multiple backup sets to the same destination). The UI's and the way they're set up to work from a workflow perspective is quite different, but I feel like behind the scenes the backup mechanism is probably similar? Many people seem to use Duplicacy, but it's quite hard to find info about Kopia.
0 kommentar(er)
