@sajith Instarted using Borg Backup. My notes are here: https://alexschroeder.ch/wiki/2017-12-24_Borg_Backup
@sajith I don't care about the file format used per se. I still feel that a backup solution should be very robust and that robustness should be more important than deduplication and all that, and that's why I really liked my old rsync based backup. But setting it all up to have multiple linked snapshots would have been hard, too.
@kensanata Yes, robustness should be the first thing!
You've mentioned that you don't like Borg Backup's opaque file format, which is why I asked. I don't know if it would be important or useful for me. I just need to make sure that I have a better backup plan besides Obnam, as my SSD is showing signs of corruption.
@sajith My measure of robustness is perhaps colored by the occurrence of bad sectors in the old days of floppy disks. Thus, a format is robust if I can still read the rest using a tool. That disqualifies compressed data, encrypted data, or anything else that results in a dependency on bytes in the damaged sectors (virtual file systems and the like). Basically, anything but plain text. 🧐
@sajith In my situation, I decided I valued encryption more than robustness because I am keeping external disks outside our home. Given that this already results in an opaque byte soup, I decided I might as well use any other format (Borg Backup format, git pack, whatever). That’s for making backups of my laptops to keep them outside our home.
@kensanata That sounds sensible!
I'm beginning to wonder if SSDs are that different from floppies.
A server stopped booting because contents of the boot partition (on an SSD!) had disappeared.
The other day "grep" stopped working on my laptop because the binary had somehow become corrupt; reinstalling grep made things work. And there was unremovable empty files with jumbled strange names in my home directory; a reboot fixed that, for now.
I'm more worried now.