Duplicacy has been incredibly stable for me over the years and I still prefer it's lock-free deduplication design. Looks like 28 days ago there was a major release as well. Time to upgrade. :)
Agreed, duplicacy seems to be more resilient to the inevitable errors or hiccups along the way. The only downside is that it seems to be inefficient with storage with small metadata updates which happen frequently with my use case.
Another happy long-term Duplicacy user here. My only problem with it is; on the rare occasions I need to restore something from backup, I can never remember the correct syntax and always have to look it up again.
Same. I ended up writing the steps in a file because I could never remember them. It's not very complicated but a bit counter-intuitive: instead of pulling everything from the remote you first have to recreate "repository" with the same parameters as the original one, and _then_ run the restore command.
I had the exact same reaction. I have little "README.md" text files scattered about to remind me how to do things and never thought to make an interactive post-it note.
They have some major differences. Enough so that I first tried Duplicati and ran into corruption issues so frequently that I sought out an alternative and luckily found Duplicacy.
Duplicacy has been stable for years now and I gladly pay the commercial license. It seemed like Duplicacy constructs a giant DB of all the files and manages everything that way, whereas Duplicacy's approach is much simpler and is less prone to corruption. The large DB approach seems to fail when the backup set contains a large number of files that many users manage.
That's right -- Duplicati constructs the giant house-of-cards DB). I sometimes need to run a $> ps -ax to remember which one I'm using when it comes time to change the config.
https://github.com/gilbertchen/duplicacy