|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] Self-hosted online backups?
|
brent timothy saner wrote:
> 3? YEP! and it DOES NOT negate #2. taken from their wiki[2]
I'm not sure that anybody has suggested that you can't both compress and
encrypt data at the same time. In fact many encryption utilities like
gpg do a compression round first to make the encryption harder to break.
However, the benefits of that compression cannot cross the boundaries of
any individual client.
> 5? yep. of course, "efficient" is a bit of a relative term, but for what
> it does
That is where I'd argue that any client-encrypted system that does not
trust the server cannot be as space efficient as a system which does
trust the server.
It is all relative as you suggest.
For example, suppose you back up 100 windows boxes that have a 2GB
OS/application install and a 5 MB of unique data each. With the
untrusted but compressed model you're going to need about 100GB of disk
space to back that all up (100*2GB/2). For the trusted model you might
get away with as little as 1.5GB ((2GB+100*5MB)/2). In practice stuff
like service packs and variation will cost you a few GB, but you're
talking about a fraction of the space of the client-encrypted model.
If you fall somewhere between the extremes of having a single computer
at home, or a datacenter with 500 cloned server images in it, choose
what makes the most sense for you... :)
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|