Re: [OT] Borg vs Restic

[Gareth Evans <donotspam@fastmail.fm>]

> On 19 Dec 2025, at 20:26, Linux-Fan <Ma_Sys.ma@web.de> wrote:
> 
> Gareth Evans writes:
> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I have recently had cause to change one remote backup on s3-compatible object storage from borg to restic, as borg + rclone was using sufficient bandwidth to generate bandwidth charges which $work (a small company) is keen to avoid.
> 
> [...]
> 
>> I have only once had an (unrelated) borg repo become corrupted, and from reading around the subject, newer versions of Restic seem to be much more robust than earlier ones.
>> 
>> I would be interested to hear from anyone with any insight into restic issues in particular (restore difficulties?)
>> 
>> I gather Mount is better than native restore/extract for large files/repos.
> 
> [...]
> 
> A long time ago (2017?), I was evaluating to use restic with a non-S3-backend and while it would seem to backup fine (some warnings were sometimes printed, but nothing that didn't seem to be recoverable), the restore was broken/incomplete, making a lot of data inaccessible (restored as 0-byte size files).
> 
> This lead me to later check some alternatives the results of which I wrote down here: <https://masysma.net/37/backup_tests_borg_bupstash_kopia.xhtml>
> 
> 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.
> 
> HTH
> Linux-Fan

Thanks for your thoughts and the link. That's a comprehensive write-up indeed, which I will read with interest.

Many thanks
Gareth