That’s definitely up to the user to define. I definitely don’t suggest the init command pre-populate these settings based on recommended values. Would Duplicacy benefit from having a different thread count for source and destination? If not, why does copy already have both -download-limit-rate and -upload-limit-rate options?īTW I’m not overly attached to this idea… I just threw it out there as a suitable enough improvement - a compromise to having hard-coded defaults for storage backends.

The lesser of the two applicable values? What if one isn’t set? Could it make a more intelligent choice? Might seem straightforward, yet not necessarily so. We have source and destination threads, upstream and downstream values for each. Pretty sure each thread isn’t using that much memory, it’s all probably shared between the main process. Since the set command exists already for similar purposes, feature creep is minimal, and my proposal was strictly for thread counts and bandwidth limits.īut one problem with the idea I can think of already is deciding which thread amount and bw limit to use for the copy command. I’m currently watching a duplicacy copy -threads 4 command taking place over sftp, and it’s showing 9 threads in htop, 4 of which are at the bottom of the list, and 4 at the top with >0.0 CPU. threads are used Rewrote the S3 storage backend using the official Amazon S3. And even though my backups are being stored on a hard drive for the virtual machine, multiple threads do seem to help. Duplicacy for Mac Download - Local and cloud backup based on lock-free de. And if you continually switch connections, you might simply choose not to ‘set’ anything at all. How can duplicacy be sped up for this kind of use-case One thing I've noticed is that Verticalbackup to a Linux virtual machine seems to run much faster, even over the network. With you on the Unix way, I don’t think it precludes the possibility to allow defaults to be overridden with a command line switch, especially in exceptional situations as above. You might want to alter number of threads depending on your connection (LAN vs LTE) This adds unnecessary complexity and ambiguity and bloat and increased possibilitity to misconfigure things. Command line utility is a backend, and it’s interface shall be clean, logical, and unambiguous, without 20 different ways to accomplish the same things. However I still disagree that we should be adding redundant features just because it seems to simplify one particular use case: this is what front ends are for. The current implementation of it as a command line argument is therefore the most appropriate. You might want to alter number of threads depending on your connection (LAN vs LTE), and therefore it should not be part of storage configuration, it shall be function of the environment. Whether it is right thing to do I’m still not sure. It’s also cheaper than Backblaze.When you put it this way, yes, that proposal does make some sense if we think of it not as a “another way to specify command line arguments to save time typing” but instead “treating number of threads as part of storage backend configuration”. STORJ comes to mind - they provide unprecedented throughput and georedundancy is built in into the design. If it turns out it’s too large, and performance is important - I would suggest consider other providers. The difference in performance between the two will show how much latency is contributing. Revivions to be deleted can be specified by numbers, by a tag, by retention policies, or by any combination of these categories. Then try downloading a huge multiGB file, to see the throughput. duplicacy prune -keep 1:7 -threads 10 use 10 threads for the pruning process. I would suggest trying to download data with another tool, such as Cyberduck or Transmit and see what performance do you get with duplicacy data. If you are far from Backblaze datacenter - this may matter. Restore speed is also effectively limited by the latency: since duplicacy creates a lot of small files, the time to first byte can contribute to the overall performance in a significant way. Are you setting number of threads for restore? The downstream - Backblaze expects you to use multiple threads, and each thread is limited to 10mbps, IIRC.

Duplicacy threads