> On 21 Dec 2025, at 06:56, Andy Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 09:25:48PM +0100, Linux-Fan wrote:
>> Since my experience is only a small data point from the past, I wouldn't
>> outright discourage the use of restic today but have decided for myself to
>> prefer other backup tools.
>
> I switched my backup process for 78 hosts to restic back in September
> and haven't had any issues. I've imported 6 years worth (~990 GiB once
> compressed and deduped) of backups from the previous system and have had
> cause to do a few restores of individual files and directories in that
> time.
>
> restic has a pretty active support forum so if anyone experiences any
> bugs it would be worth reporting and discussing them.
>
> I don't use an S3 backend though so don't really have any more to add
> for the benefit of the OP.
> As far as I understand, restic's reduced
> bandwidth usage (and thus cost, for commercial S3 backends) is likely
> due to the increased amount of client-side caching of repo data that it
> does compared to borgbackup.
Thanks Andy. Restic has resulted in much reduced bandwidth in comparison to
borg + rclone (where I gather rclone is the culprit) but is, as you say,
reported to be less efficient on that front than plain Borg.
Your experience is reassuring.
Many thanks
Gareth
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
> --
> https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
>
