9/21/2023 0 Comments Duplicacy fix missing chunk![]() ![]() Once again, depending from situation, protocols and platforms, this might be a problem (overhead, malfunctions) or not.Įvery application is designed for some use case, and there are very different use cases. When every chunk is in it’s own file, it might lead to situations where there are absolutely staggering amounts of files. Yet then you wouldn’t know which blocks are referenced and which ones aren’t, because you can’t have access to the master list(s).Īnother drawback seems to be also obvious. > Which would allow you to only restore data based on the master-list, even if you’ve got access to all chunks. ![]() Then it would require the master list of data to be encrypted, so the chunks can use shared content specific keys. I guess it’s possible to transfer some of the keys from system to system to enable this kind of access. But it would of course require managing the content lists in a way where the information about non-shared data can’t leak. Yet it would be naturally possible to use content specific encryption keys, as described. And the private data which isn’t shared, can’t be naturally backed up with shared encryption keys. Because shared data usually doesn’t need to be backed up. At least in most of cases I’ve seen, this is rarely the case. Except this works well in cases where you’ve got set of systems, which share mostly same data and same encryption keys. I didn’t find anything amazing about the lock-free approach here. Why that’s a killer feature? It suits only very specific operating environments. The lock-free dedupe is probably its killer feature. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |