Hacker News Reader

Comment by cyberpunk | Hacker News Reader

Do you happen to know if rsync.net supports this?

"Do you happen to know if rsync.net supports this?"

Yes, we do.

If you get a zpool from us (which is a bit different than a "normal" rsync.net account) it is running the latest stable ZoL codebase and, thus, supports encryption and "raw send", etc.

However ...

As elegant and performant as 'zfs send' is, the benefits are realized in large datasets where efficiency and performance really matters. If you're just sending 200 or 400 or 800 GB of data to an untrusted destination (like rsync.net) you should probably just use borg[1][2].

[1] https://borgbackup.readthedocs.io/en/stable/

[2] https://www.stavros.io/posts/holy-grail-backups/

Hmm, well currently all my machines, phones etc backup to a nas (zol) which I then reclone up to an encrypted b2 bucket, but tbh the restores suck and they charge for traffic so I was contemplating just throwing em on rsync.net, you recon Borg->rs.n is the way to go instead of zfs send? Under 2tb..

Well, it's really up to you but let me put it this way ...

In order to give you a zpool of your own we need to give you a full blown VM (bhyve) with resource guarantees and your own IP address, etc.

So there is a 1TB minimum and no discounts.

Alternatively, if you just get a plain old rsync.net account the minimum account size is much smaller and if you're an expert and don't need any (borg specific) support there is a discounted plan[1].

[1] https://rsync.net/products/borg.html

Interesting I wasn't aware of the borg discount pricing, that may change my default position. I now know of three pricing schemes, basic, ZFS, and borg, the last two of which don't seem to be listed anywhere on the site. Got any other products hiding behind my ignorance? :)

If OpenZFS supported some kind of "virtual zpool" feature (I guess it doesn't exist yet) that you could provision out of your main ZFS infrastructure and hand off to the customer, would that be useful to reduce the resource overhead related to offering ZFS directly?

(Completely guessing, but I’ve managed a few pb of zfs) — It’s probably a zvol on the host exposed as a block device (or via iscsi or something) to the vm, zpool in a zvol is ok ;)

Oh neat. Composability is a helluva drug.

Do you have a sense of why dedicated/isolated infra (VM & IP) might be necessary to provide this service?

Isolation between users.

Are you offering a full IPv4-enabled VM or just IPv6?

We offer ipv4. Remember, it is ssh only so there is very little you can do with it other than backups.

We strongly encourage people to use ipv6, which we support everywhere ...

They support zfs send-recv and snapshots:

* https://www.rsync.net/products/zfsintro.html

* https://www.rsync.net/resources/howto/snapshots.html

Whether their ZFS implementation supports OpenZFS encryption is something you'll have to e-mail them about. They have an HN account:

* https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=rsync

Edit: Yes, it seems that they do:

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26506263

Reply on news.ycombinator.com