BorgBackup 2.0 supports Rclone – over 70 cloud providers in addition to SSH

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Borg vs rclone, Restic, Kopia, etc.

  • rclone is framed as a sync/transfer tool (like rsync for cloud), not a full backup system. Its “dedupe” is mostly filename- or hash-based at file level, not block-level dedup like Borg/Restic.
  • Borg/Restic/Kopia/Rustic/bupstash/HashBackup are backup tools with snapshots, block-level deduplication, compression, and client-side encryption.
  • Restic and Kopia already integrate with rclone; Borg 2.0 doing this narrows a previous gap (S3/object-storage support).
  • Some users have moved to Restic or Kopia specifically because Borg 1.x lacked first-class object storage or multi-host efficiency.

Deduplication, encryption, and large data

  • Borg and Restic dedupe at block level; this is especially valuable for large datasets, maildirs, databases, and VM images.
  • rclone crypt vs Borg encryption: discussed but no clear winner given; they operate at different layers (file transport vs backup repository).
  • For databases/VMs, effective dedup requires small block sizes (e.g., 4K–16K); many tools struggle with performance/metadata overhead at that scale.
  • Encryption on the provider side is seen by some as a “false sense of security”; preference is for client-side encryption with local key control.

Borg 2.0 status and rclone backend

  • Borg 2.0 is still beta and explicitly “testing only” on new repositories. Betas are incompatible with each other and with 1.x; no migration paths between betas.
  • Some early 2.x users report being stuck with repos that cannot be upgraded or downgraded without discarding data.
  • The new repository/backend abstraction in 2.0 made the rclone backend small and straightforward; rclone itself is considered mature.

Workflows, storage targets, and costs

  • Common pattern: local Borg backup, then rclone to cloud (B2, S3, etc.). rclone integration allows writing directly to cloud but copying repos still demands care and integrity checks.
  • Cheap storage options discussed: Hetzner Storage Box, rsync.net, Backblaze B2, OneDrive via rclone, NAS/SFTP, and object storage with tiering.

Reliability, verification, and strategy

  • Long-term Borg users report years of trouble-free operation with heavy dedup savings.
  • Strong emphasis on automated integrity checks and restore tests (e.g., borgmatic checks, “spot” checks, restoring random files, Prometheus/cron alerts).
  • Debate over feasibility of manual testing vs relying on built-in automated verification; consensus that multiple independent backups and checks are wise.

Usability, GUIs, and platforms

  • Some find Restic conceptually simpler and more stable; others prefer Borg’s ecosystem (borgmatic, Vorta, Pika Backup, Backrest).
  • rclone’s CLI and lack of robust GUIs are criticized as complex for desktop users.
  • Kopia praised for opportunistic backups on laptops and multi-machine shared repos.
  • Windows support for Borg is limited and unofficial (WSL/cygwin); Android usage typically indirect (Syncthing + Borg, SeedVault).