They are so similar in features. How do they compare? Which to choose?
They are so similar in features. How do they compare? Which to choose?
All three have a lot of commands to work with repositories. Each one of them is much better than closed source proprietary backup software that I have dealt with, like Synology hyperbackup nonsense.
If you want a better solution, the next level is ZFS.
With ZFS, all file system is replicated. The backup will be consistent, which is not the case with file level backup. With latter, you have to also worry about lock files, permissions, etc. The restore will be more natural and quick with ZFS.
> If you want a better solution, the next level is ZFS.
Not a backup. Not a bad choice for storage for backup server tho
I don't need to configure and monitor cron jobs.
When I tested Restic (eight years ago) it was super slow.
No opinion about Kopia, never heard of it.
The fact that Kopia has a UI is awesome for non-technical users.
I migrated off restic due to memory usage, to Kopia. I am currently debating switching back to restic purely because of how retention works.
I was setting up PCs for unsophisticated users who needed to be able to do their own restores. Most OSS choices are only appropriate for technical users, and some like Borg are *nix-only.
I tried KopiaUI couple of times, it's not something I want as a personal backup tool.