this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2025
24 points (92.9% liked)

Selfhosted

60114 readers
747 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts here are to be centered around self-hosting. Please ensure it is clear in your post how it relates to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or git here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require your active participation in selfhosting or related communities, or the post will be removed. No more than 10% of your posts or comments may be self-promotional, or your post will be removed. F/LOSS Exception: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & can be self-hosted in full without payment, and your account is at least 30 days old, your post is exempt from this rule as long as you continue to engage in comments.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Stumbling through getting a proper backup regime in place. I have an unraid system running a proper array, and am trying to setup backups for two separate machines (one windows one debian). I've successfully setup a file share, and have duplicati running. Are there disadvantages to just setting the network folder as the destination for the backup? It seems a little hamfisted (and the data rates are terrible).

It seems like there's probably a better way to do this...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

SMB isn't really all that slow these days.

I have NFS and SMB shares set up (same directory) and copying files to/from them maxes out my gigabit LAN.

SSH on the other hand is slower, because there's more CPU overhead.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

All data and benchmarks would disagree with you. If you find something showing that SMB isn't slower than the others mentioned, I'd love to see it.

[–] Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I disagree with the other person, rsync + ssh is faster even in my own benchmarks. But samba is plenty fast enough these days, I can easily have it max out my gigabit network so I don't need anything faster. So for me (and I would guess the majority of people) speed really isn't a concern anymore, so I use samba because it's easy to use and it makes sharing network folders to anything else a breeze.

It's like phones. Yeah technically the newest iPhone is faster than this years budget Samsung. But when's the last time your phone was actually a bottleneck? (Unless you're one of those people who play games, in which case, actually please respond cause I could use some really nice idle city builders for my phone pls)

[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Real world usage tells me all I need to know.