Re: [Duplicity-talk] Redundancy?

[Lluís Batlle i Rossell]

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:03:47PM +0200, address@hidden wrote:
> yeah.. if encryption is not needed btar is a viable option. ..ede

I use encryption with btar all the time, as a filter. :)
$ btar -c -F "gpg -e" ....
(for example)

> On 24.05.2013 11:52, Mikołaj Czyż wrote:
> > Thank you very much for your replies.
> > 
> > Tahoe-LAFS sure looks interesting (if too complicated for my needs). And I 
> > will start testing btar, that looks just like what I need.
> > 
> > Best.
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell <address@hidden 
> > <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
> > 
> >     On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 06:55:24PM +0200, Mikołaj Czyż wrote:
> >     > But having one extra volume as a XOR result seems (naively) like not 
> > so
> >     > complicated idea, doesn't it?
> > 
> >     Exactly, that's why I implemented it in my case.
> > 
> >     > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell 
> > <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>>wrote:
> >     >
> >     > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 06:43:47PM +0200, Mikołaj Czyż wrote:
> >     > > > Thanks. But as duplicity uses checksums extensively, etc. why not 
> > add
> >     > > some
> >     > > > level of redundancy?
> >     > > > (on the other hand I believe there must be good reasons not to 
> > implement
> >     > > it
> >     > > > if it is still not there)
> >     > >
> >     > > In fact I don't use duplicity much; I use mainly a program I wrote,
> >     > > 'btar', and
> >     > > there I added at least one block of redundancy with XOR. :)
> >     > >
> >     > > More redundancy is a bit more complicated (requiring lots of 
> > memory).
> >     > >
> >     > > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell <
> >     > > address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>>wrote:
> >     > > >
> >     > > > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 06:35:13PM +0200, Mikołaj Czyż wrote:
> >     > > > > > Are there any works on adding some form of archive redundancy 
> > to
> >     > > > > duplicity?
> >     > > > > >
> >     > > > > > If I understand correctly one bit-flip can destroy the whole
> >     > > duplicity
> >     > > > > > backup, am I right?
> >     > > > >
> >     > > > > It will destroy one file of the backup, I think. The backup has
> >     > > multiple
> >     > > > > files.
> >     > > > >
> >     > > > > It will require hand work, but it's not that the whole backup 
> > will
> >     > > > > disappear,
> >     > > > > iiuc.
> >     > > > >
> >     > > > > _______________________________________________
> >     > > > > Duplicity-talk mailing list
> >     > > > > address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
> >     > > > > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
> >     > > > >
> >     > >
> >     > > > _______________________________________________
> >     > > > Duplicity-talk mailing list
> >     > > > address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
> >     > > > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     > > _______________________________________________
> >     > > Duplicity-talk mailing list
> >     > > address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
> >     > > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
> >     > >
> > 
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > Duplicity-talk mailing list
> >     > address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
> >     > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
> > 
> > 
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Duplicity-talk mailing list
> >     address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
> >     https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Duplicity-talk mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Duplicity-talk mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk