Zbackup: open-source, encrypted, de-duplicated, compressed backups

I'm a little concerned about the use of deduplication and encryption in the same system. If done improperly, deduplication followed by encryption potentially leaks information--a passive adversary can make some good guesses at what's going in with the plaintext across backups, based on how big or small the size delta is. Maybe I'm being overly paranoid, but I didn't find a satisfactory answer in the documentation at how to plug this side-channel. Would an experienced user or the author be willing to comment?

ZPAQ has much to give, a good recommendation. But I also found obnam awesome for de-duplicated backups as it allows cool snapshots which can be mounted via FUSE to be browsed in Nautilus or extracted via commandline tools.<p>Package: obnam Version: 1.8-1 Maintainer: Lars Wirzenius &lt;liw@liw.fi&gt; Depends: libc6 (&gt;= 2.6), python (&gt;= 2.7), python (&lt;&lt; 2.8), python-larch (&gt;= 1.20131130~), python-ttystatus (&gt;= 0.23~), python-paramiko, python-tracing (&gt;= 0.8~), python-cliapp (&gt;= 1.20130808~), python-fuse Description-en: online and disk-based backup application Obnam makes backups. Backups can be stored on local hard disks, or online via the SSH SFTP protocol. The backup server, if used, does not require any special software, on top of SSH. . * Snapshot backups. Every generation looks like a complete snapshot, so you don&#x27;t need to care about full versus incremental backups, or rotate real or virtual tapes. * Data de-duplication, across files, and backup generations. If the backup repository already contains a particular chunk of data, it will be re-used, even if it was in another file in an older backup generation. This way, you don&#x27;t need to worry about moving around large files, or modifying them. * Encrypted backups, using GnuPG. * Push or pull operation, depending on what you need. You can run Obnam on the client, and push backups to the server, or on the server, and pull from the client over SFTP.<p>Homepage: <a href="http://liw.fi/obnam/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;liw.fi&#x2F;obnam&#x2F;</a>

Ive recently found <a href="http://mattmahoney.net/dc/zpaq.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;mattmahoney.net&#x2F;dc&#x2F;zpaq.html</a> which (on paper) is as good as zbackup&#x2F;bup&#x2F;rdiff-backup. Haven&#x27;t had time to try it - anyone her has experience?

This looks very similar to attic, anyone able and willing to compare them for pros and cons?

ZFS has de-duplication features however the amount of RAM required for the lookup tables can become massive and I would generally not recommend using it for large-ish backup systems. Does this get around the massive lookup tables somehow?<p>Edit: The README addresses this under scalability. Apparently the overhead is much smaller than for ZFS.

One small caveat: I don&#x27;t think that &quot;production ready&quot;, for a backup software, can be interpreted as &quot;i&#x27;m not touching anything existing, so no harm done by using me&quot;. If it&#x27;s a backup system, people will rely on it. So it&#x27;s either production ready or it&#x27;s not.

I went googling for a survey of backup tools and ended up at.. Hacker News: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8621372" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=8621372</a>

Hmm, <a href="https://www.tarsnap.com/" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.tarsnap.com&#x2F;</a> does this...

MMh. Test suite seems to have a lot of gaps.