I strongly advise people to not rely on Duplicati. Throughout its history, it's had a lot of weird, fatal problems that the dev team has shown little interest in tracking down while there is endless interest in chasing yet another storage provider or other shiny things.

Duplicati has been in desperate need of an extended feature freeze and someone to comb through the forums and github issues looking for critical archive-destroying or corrupting bugs.

"If you interrupt the initial backup, your archive is corrupted, but silently, so you'll do months of backups, maybe even rely upon having those backups" was what made me throw up my hands in disgust. I don't know if it's still a thing; I don't care. Any backup software that allows such a glaring bug to persist for months if not years has completely lost my trust.

In general there seemed to be a lot of local database issues where it could become corrupted, you'd have no idea, and worse, a lot of situations seemed to be unrecoverable - even doing a rebuild based off the 'remote' archive would error out or otherwise not work.

The duplicati team has exactly zero appreciation for the fact that backup software should be like filesystems: the most stable, reliable, predictable piece of software your computer runs.

Also, SSD users should be aware that Duplicati assembles each archive object on the local filesystem. On spinning rust, it significantly impacts performance.

Oh, and the default archive object size is comically small for modern day usage and will cause significant issues if you're not using object storage (say, a remote directory.) After just a few backups of a system with several hundred GB, you could end up with a "cripples standard linux filesystem tools" numbers of files in a single directory.

And of course, there's no way to switch or migrate object sizes...