I've been using tarsnap for years and am in the process of migrating away from it.
Things that are not cozy:
1) There's no way to monitor your monthly spend per host/credit left on the account/etc. apart of logging into your account in a browser and manually keeping a spreadsheet. There's no web API to do it. You get an email warning when you have about 7 days of credit left. That's it.
2) Nothing is "a precious few megabytes" anymore. What seems like a negligible monthly spend at first can quickly grow up on you and soon you're spending highly non-trivial amounts. Which you might not notice due to 1) unless you are diligent in your accounting.
3) tarsnap restores are slow. Really really slow. A full restore can take days if you have non-trivial amounts of data (and make sure you have enough credit in your account to pay for that server-to-client bandwidth!) My understanding is that throughput is directly related to your latency to the AWS datacenter where tarsnap is hosted. Outside of north America you can be looking at nearly dial-up speeds even on a gigabit link.
Again, a problem that can surprise you at the most inconvenient time. Incremental backups in a daily cronjob tend to transfer very small amounts of data, so you won't notice the slowness until you try to do a full restore. And you generally don't test that very often because you pay for server-to-client transfers.
There are some workarounds for 3) and there's a FAQ about it, but look at the mailing list and you'll see that it's something that surprises people again and again.
privatelypublic 12 hours ago [-]
Sounds like it's just a worse Glacier setup then?
Amazon has Pre-Pay in a semi-open beta.
CloudFront has 1TB/month free- knocking a large chunk of a restore's cost. (Note- you should have either encrypted your stuff yourself and/or S3 authorization/access control still works over CF)
At what seems to be <$2/mo per TB ($1/TB glacier Deep archive + 9cent/gb for metadata on S3 frequent access), no other solution comes close. The big issue is the lump cost of a restore. Which, is quickly worn down by being > $5/TiB/mo cheaper than anybody else.
amluto 11 hours ago [-]
Tarsnap has a nice security model, and it’s quite a challenge to convince any open-source tool to match it.
dividuum 11 hours ago [-]
restic is basically identical and you can choose where you store your data.
amluto 10 hours ago [-]
restic can supposedly be set up to prevent a corrupted / compromised client from destroying old data using S3 versioning policy, but this doesn’t appear to be a well-supported feature with clearly-described security properties.
Tarsnap, in contrast, has an explicit first-class ability to prevent a compromised client from damaging old backups.
placardloop 9 hours ago [-]
That’s because restic is not opinionated about where and how you store your backups. Restic provides a nice interface to create the backups, and then lets you choose where you want to store them (and how access to them is managed), be it locally or via SFTP or S3 or many other backends. Any security properties related to S3 are not in the scope of what restic is meant to do.
It’s pretty simple to enable versioning and object lock on your S3 bucket, but it is another step if you’re using restic. Sure, if you just want all of that taken care of for you, you can use tarsnap, but you’re paying a 5x+ premium for it.
The other nice thing about restic is that since it’s just the client-side interface, it allows others to provide managed storage. Borgbase.com is a storage backend that is supported by Restic that supports append-only backups, and is cheaper than tarsnap.
I would like to see an explicit discussion of what permissions are needed for what operation. I would also like to see a clearly specified model in which backups can be created in a bucket with less than full permissions and, even after active attack by an agent with those same permissions, one can enumerate all valid backups in the bucket and be guaranteed to be able to correctly restore any backup as long as one can figure out which backup one wants to restore.
Instead there are random guides on medium.com describing a configuration that may or may not have the desired effect.
placardloop 3 hours ago [-]
Again, this isn’t at all in the scope of restic’s docs. If you’re using S3 as the storage, it’s on you to understand how S3 works and what permissions are needed, just like it’s on you to understand how your local file system works and file permissions work if you use the local file system as a backend.
If you don’t understand S3 or don’t want to learn, then that’s fine, and you can pay the premium to tarsnap for simplifying it for you. But that’s your choice, not an issue with restic.
If you think differently, have you submitted a PR to restic’s docs to add the information you think should be there?
privatelypublic 1 hours ago [-]
Interesting play on the debate- but after the response to restic's original decision to upstream Object Store permissions and features... to the Object Store, along with my attempts to explain S3 to several otherwise reasonably technical people....
I think people are frequently trapped in some way of thinking (not sure exactly) that doesn't allow them to think of storage as anything other than Block based. They repeatedly try to reduce S3 to LBA's, or POSIX permissions (not even modern ACL type permissions), or some other comparison that falls apart quickly.
Best I've come up with is "an object is a burned CD-R." Even that falls apart though
amluto 1 hours ago [-]
I still completely disagree. It’s on me to understand IAM. It should not be on me to understand the way that restic uses S3 such that I can determine whether I can credibly restore from an S3 bucket after a compromised client gets permission to create objects that didn’t previously exist. Or to create new corrupt versions of existing objects.
For that matter, suppose an attacker modifies an object and replaces it with corrupt or malicious contents, and I detect it, and the previous version still exists. Can the restic client, as written, actually manage the process of restoring it? I do not want to need to patch the client as part of my recovery plan.
(Compare to Tarsnap. By all accounts, if you backup up, your data is there. But there are more than enough reports of people who are unable to usefully recover the data because the client is unbelievably slow. The restore tool needs to do what the user needs it to do in order for the backup to be genuinely useful.)
dividuum 6 hours ago [-]
Fair enough. Personally I use an ssh target with zfs file system with its own automatic snapshots. The restic snapshots don’t directly correspond to the zfs snapshots, but I can live with that.
kunley 12 hours ago [-]
I found restic is a prety cool alternative. (No hosting though, I am sending restic backups to a private server/vps)
pbowyer 7 hours ago [-]
Same but with rustic because I found it used significantly less memory.
Is it stable? I've been using restic for a while, and I'm interested in rustic, but I have no idea how stable it is overall. Obviously it's still in beta so I won't use it in prod but curious what others experiences have been like.
muyuu 11 hours ago [-]
yep it's what i'm using right now
restic, and my own computers and storage, and the occasional rented device (VPS or similar, typically)
i find that the hassle of setting up my stuff is still preferable than having to worry about managing bills, subscriptions, and third parties just changing their policies
porridgeraisin 10 hours ago [-]
+1 for restic
Restic + rclone is a very nice combo. Works really well.
pa7ch 7 hours ago [-]
Curious why use both? I use restic directly with B2 backblaze, whats rclone doing for you here?
maw 3 hours ago [-]
I use restic + rclone to back up to onedrive, where I have 1TB space included with my subscription.
My main backups are on rsync.net, though.
aborsy 4 hours ago [-]
As several said, Restic does the same for free (bring your own storage). Tarsnap makes no sense, it’s 50-100X more expensive than alternatives.
And Restic is good quality software.
luizfelberti 12 hours ago [-]
I also switched away from Tarsnap because I needed to restore my personal PDF collection of like 20GB once and my throughput was like 100Kb/s, maybe less. It has been a problem for at least a decade, with no fix in sight.
I'm carefully monitoring plakar in this space, wondering if anyone has experience with it and could share?
amar0c 12 hours ago [-]
It can be whatever it wants I am not paying $25 to store 100GB. I used to use Tarsnap a decade or so ago but pricing makes no sense at all nowadays.
Looks like much for both Colin and us could be solved moving this away from AWS
placardloop 12 hours ago [-]
The pricing isn’t due to AWS. Even if you used standard S3 and paid for data retrieval for your entire backup every single month, tarsnap is over 3x the price of just using S3 yourself. The markup on tarsnap is wild.
Using something like restic or borgbackup+rclone is pretty much the same experience as tarsnap but a fraction of the price.
ghostly_s 12 hours ago [-]
Yeah that pricing is crazy for something without any of the security that comes with using a BigCo. I've bounced off it in the past as soon as I got to their cutesy pricing model but I just played with the calculator linked here to model my needs -- three thousand USD a year for 1Tb of cold storage??
hiAndrewQuinn 7 hours ago [-]
I appreciate you using the calculator! It's at [1] for anyone who wants to futz around with it.
$3000 per TB-year is accurate to my knowledge, and yes, it is at least one, and probably two, orders of magnitude what you can get with more general purpose systems. Backblaze B2 is $72 per TB-year; AWS Glacier is $12 per TB-year I believe; purchasing two 20 TB Seagate drives for $300 apiece, mirroring them, and replacing them every 3 years gives you about $10 per TB-year (potentially - most of us don't have 20 TB to back up in our personal lives). Those are the best prices I've been able to find with some looking [2].
To me, when I was building out the digital resiliency audit, the pricing and model just seemed to tell me that tarsnap was for very specific kinds of critical data backups, and was not a great fit for general purpose stuff. Like a lot of other people here I also have a general-purpose restic based 3-2-1 backup going for the ~150 GB in /home I back up. [3] My use of tarsnap is partly a cheap hedge for the handful of bytes of data I genuinely cannot afford to lose against issues with restic, Backblaze B2, systemd, etc.
Do they charge for actual bandwidth as well? Seems like it. From tarsnap.com:
> Tarsnap uses a prepaid model based on actual usage: Storage: 250 picodollars / byte-month of encoded data ($0.25 / GB-month)
Bandwidth: 250 picodollars / byte of encoded data ($0.25 / GB)
rafram 11 hours ago [-]
OP's cost estimator tells me it would cost a cool $250 per month to keep a terabyte of data backed up in Tarsnap. The same amount costs me $8.25 per month with Backblaze. That's not very cozy!
hiAndrewQuinn 11 hours ago [-]
OP here, thanks for using the cost estimator! [1] I'm glad you got some use out of it.
I use Backblaze B2 myself for most of my general purpose backup needs. It's actually $6/month, I believe.
Tarsnap fills but one niche in my overall system. It's a very important niche for which I haven't found any other providers who do anything similar (keyfiles, prepaid, borderline anonymous etc), but it's not where I store the vast majority of my stuff.
I just don't really understand what the niche is. If you have a tiny bit of data that you want to keep backed up and rarely access, you can encrypt it with any number of easy command-line or GUI tools and upload it to Google Drive, Dropbox, or anywhere else with a free tier. If it's securely encrypted, there's no reason to care that the storage provider knows who you are. Tarsnap definitely has nerd appeal, but I can't think of a real problem that it actually solves.
hiAndrewQuinn 10 hours ago [-]
I readily admit I'm a nerd about this stuff, and this is primarily a hobby of mine. I am explicitly not 80/20'ing this because it's fun. [1]
One use case: I don't like the idea of having any accounts at all which I log into without the aid of a password manager. That creates a bootstrapping problem - how am I supposed to log into Google Drive to get my Google Drive password? A prepaid keyfile-based model is one particularly robust way of solving this. You stick your e.g. 100 kB password database in there, print out and shred the keyfile, stick the printout in a fireproof safe, and be virtually certain that whatever you put in Tarsnap has been untouched however many years you come back to it later. Print it on archival paper with some silica gel packets and it might survive for millennia in your weird subterranean vampire family castle.
"The business won't survive that long." I'm not so sure. Its ongoing costs appear minimal, and it generates eye watering amounts of float. $5 paid today is >$200 fifty years from now when compounded at 8% real interest. That very fact makes it much more likely that Tarsnap actually will survive for those 50 years, which should make us more likely to trust it, which... You see where this is going. This is one of those things where aggressively pricing too close to the bare metal costs might actually be a bad thing to a very important subset of users. One might even make the argument that, if the margins are as good as I'm supposing they are, then depending on the goals of the founder, Tarsnap is more likely to outlive S3 than S3 Tarsnap.
print those and password, stick the printout in a fireproof safe
muppetman 12 hours ago [-]
I used tarsnap for years, but as my data got bigger and I really wanted to have multipe offsite backups with different providers, I moved to restic.
I loved tarsnap - it's a great product. But restic feels very similar but you can backup to your local HD, a remote HD, or "the cloud" and everything is the same CLI commands.
ghostly_s 12 hours ago [-]
What provider(s) are you using?
muppetman 11 hours ago [-]
I use borgbase (they support restic) - backblaze with their s3 backend, and my own servers. So server A will copy to server B and vis-versa every ~10 minutes snapshot for quick/easy restoration should it be necessary, then nightly backups to borgbase/backblaze.
phyzome 4 hours ago [-]
The interface is nice but it is excruciatingly slow at restores. I had to switch to borg, which has an extremely similar feature set but performs much better (and you can bring your own hardware).
rsyring 4 hours ago [-]
Seriously. If you are considering Tarsnap, or use it but have never tested a restore, don't hand wave this comment away.
You might be tempted to think: it's a popular service, it can't be that bad.
But, it really can be, and if you've not tried it yourself, you'll only find out when you need it. Which could be way too late.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 6 hours ago [-]
Coziness comes at a cost. $250/TB/month is very expensive. Dropbox charges $5/TB/m, Hetzner $4 (traffic included).
qhwudbebd 5 hours ago [-]
I'm really surprised to hear that the slow restore times from tarsnap are still as big a problem now as they were a decade ago when I last used it. I absolutely loved the interface and the security model, and I was willing to pay at the (very) premium price point, but it was just too impractical trying to restore anything from it at the speeds I could achieve. (If I remember right, there was some problem with the design which meant normal latency between the client and the server tanked throughput to crazily low levels.)
turtlebits 5 hours ago [-]
For the price, there better be some plan for this service to exist in 10/100 years. With a bus factor of 2, that gives me little confidence.
bigstrat2003 11 hours ago [-]
I really wanted to like Tarsnap and gave it a good hard look for my backup needs. Ultimately my problem was that there's no way for me to gauge how much the service will cost me. Going just by the amount of data in my home dir, it would be cost prohibitive to upload to Tarsnap. The site does assure me that thanks to compression and deduplication, the actual cost will be far less than I might estimate, which is great! But also, as far as I can tell there's no way to have the client give me an estimate of "here's how much data you actually have once the secret sauce is applied". So while the dedup and compression might make the costs far more reasonable, I won't actually know until I pay to store some data. Which means I might find that suddenly I owe Colin a lot of money if the size savings aren't very big due to my data not being very amenable to those measures. That's not a risk I'm willing to take, so ultimately I pursued other options.
will tell you the compressed size of your deduplicated data, which gives you the upload cost and first-month cost. 4GB of files usually works out to 3GB of dedup/compressed archive data for most people, less for people with many similar files.
bigstrat2003 3 hours ago [-]
Thank you very much for the info! I'm glad to have been wrong, and that there is a way to do this.
mmh0000 10 hours ago [-]
Tarsnap seems very expensive.
I'm backing up about 8TiB of data nightly using BorgBackup[0] + InterServer[1] and pay $240/yr.
This gives me differential encrypted rotating backups that are 100% mine and do not lock me into any specific storage vendor.
This sounds cool, but the other comments here are concerning. I've been considring Hetzner's Storage Box, as it's cheap and I could use just about anything to backup my stuff – although I prefer restic.
Storage Box with Borg backup can be setup to work almost identically to tarsnap.
The only real security feature missing is write-only access to the repository (Borg backup in theory supports it, but in practice it's impossible to use it in a way that prevents a compromised host from deleting it's backups - like tarsnap does).
In theory it is less reliable than tarsnap (AWS S3 compared to a single copy on a Hetzner's drive).
Storage Box is significantly cheaper for any kind of real-life backup sizes in my experience.
Borg requires more work to setup and configure compared to tarsnap. There's typically some scripting involved that's unique to your setup and I found that I had more documentation to study before I understood how to use Borg correctly.
A know a few people that have very low opinion of Borg's code quality and stay away from it because of it (I haven't studied it first hand)
noAnswer 6 hours ago [-]
You could activate snapshots on your Sotrage Box and don't give your Borg user access to it.
xnx 13 hours ago [-]
50x more expensive than a hard drive feels like a lot.
hiAndrewQuinn 12 hours ago [-]
It depends on what you're after and what you're using it for. I broke down the costs I forecast for myself over the next decade at https://andrew-quinn.me/digital-resiliency-2025/#postscript-... and found tarsnap is unlikely to cost me more than 50 cents for my usecase. Backblaze B2 will cost me about $70-80 over the next 10 years, but it has many orders of magnitude more data to back up.
The cheapest I can find for a consumer buying e.g. 20TB Seagate hard drives and rotating them every 3 years or so is about $5 per TB-year, without mirroring. So if raw storage cost optimization is what you're after that's what I'd go for to start. Even AWS Glacier doesn't come close to that, although you do get other things with it.
dathinab 12 hours ago [-]
it's expensive but it doesn't have a monthly base cost, doesn't require you to run a server etc.
through you want at least one backup of yours to be off site, and your want your backups robust, so comparing hard drive cost seem strange as if you run the backup server yourself you need a decent raid and for the offline backup you need to compare with idk. S3 storage cost or similar
it's still more expensive but if you only need to backup some folders of documents or similar it might anyway be the simpler and cheaper solution
if you want to backup huge photo/video/vm image collections it probably isn't the best choice for you
but if you need to backup you photo
homebrewer 12 hours ago [-]
A hard drive under the bed is not the only alternative to tarsnap, you can use any of its numerous competitors that are also maintained by professionals, whose whole business is also running a backup service. Say rsync.net or borgbase, which are at least 10× cheaper than tarsnap last time I compared them, and can be used with restic or borg which are much faster at restoring even relatively small amounts data (forget if we're talking terabytes, it's "weeks" vs "your link speed").
I think tarsnap was a good service about 20 years ago when it had little competition, but using it now makes very little sense IMHO. You can donate to its awesome FreeBSD maintainer, or to FreeBSD, directly.
LiamPowell 11 hours ago [-]
> Say rsync.net or borgbase
Borgbase had a week long (IIRC) outage due to a failed attempt to add new drives to an array. As far as I know they never published a post-mortem on this and have never discussed how they're going to improve their disaster recovery so it can't happen again. It's difficult to recommend when they could leave you without working backups for an entire week.
pessimizer 12 hours ago [-]
> A hard drive under the bed is not the only alternative to tarsnap
Also you can back up to the hard drive under your friend's bed, and they can back up to the hard drive under your bed.
If you're even slightly technical, or have a friend who is, I'd recommend both of you buying the cheapest Kirkwood NASes you can find on ebay, throwing Debian on them, and becoming each other's backup buddies.
That's what I do! I have a couple of friends from college and we back up to each other over a VPN. It's a very nice solution to the off-site backup need.
lazyant 12 hours ago [-]
you are comparing data storage to a backup solution, not the target market
Does anyone know how it compares to restic or duplicate?
bccdee 11 hours ago [-]
I use restic. Restic offers everything advertised on the tarsnap website (deduplicated snapshots, e2e encryption). I pay $6 per terabyte per month using backblaze's cloud object storage. Wasabi offers 1TB at $7/mo. S3 costs $26/mo, but glacier is only $3.6/mo.
Storing one terabyte of data in tarsnap costs $250 per month.
margalabargala 12 hours ago [-]
Basically the same service, but much more expensive.
iumo 9 hours ago [-]
OP's has a link typo in tarsnap cost eestimator.
hiAndrewQuinn 7 hours ago [-]
OP, link seems to work fine for me.
kerblang 11 hours ago [-]
gzip + ccrypt -> thumb drive
Also cozy if your data fits. No monthly fee, just the cost of new/recycled thumbies
hiAndrewQuinn 10 hours ago [-]
I love thumb drives, but Tarsnap is cheaper than the expected 10 year lifetime of a fresh and well maintained thumb drive for the kind of data I hold in there by about a factor of 20 (50 cents vs $10).
It also doesn't require a UL Class 125 fireproofed safe to survive a house fire, but that's splitting hairs and getting into hobbyist territory.
1oooqooq 48 minutes ago [-]
tarsnap is not cheaper than anything
chevalier_1222 12 hours ago [-]
why would someone do this instead uploading the encrypted chunks/updates to gdrive or anywhere else?
hiAndrewQuinn 12 hours ago [-]
Tarsnap's model is an ideal fit for a very small subset of the data I'm interested in safeguarding for the future. https://andrew-quinn.me/digital-resiliency-2025/ goes into it in a lot more detail.
Sesse__ 11 hours ago [-]
If you're interested in safeguarding data for the future, then I don't think the model of “my backup immediately disappears once the account runs out of money” gives me anything resembling a cozy feeling at all.
hiAndrewQuinn 10 hours ago [-]
That's actually one of my favorite features. That should never happen under the limited circumstances I use it for. If something goes so wrong that my account actually runs out of money before I notice, then I far prefer the default to be "intruder alert, intruder alert, wipe everything". There's a reason it's marketed as backups for the truly paranoid.
Things that are not cozy:
1) There's no way to monitor your monthly spend per host/credit left on the account/etc. apart of logging into your account in a browser and manually keeping a spreadsheet. There's no web API to do it. You get an email warning when you have about 7 days of credit left. That's it.
2) Nothing is "a precious few megabytes" anymore. What seems like a negligible monthly spend at first can quickly grow up on you and soon you're spending highly non-trivial amounts. Which you might not notice due to 1) unless you are diligent in your accounting.
3) tarsnap restores are slow. Really really slow. A full restore can take days if you have non-trivial amounts of data (and make sure you have enough credit in your account to pay for that server-to-client bandwidth!) My understanding is that throughput is directly related to your latency to the AWS datacenter where tarsnap is hosted. Outside of north America you can be looking at nearly dial-up speeds even on a gigabit link.
Again, a problem that can surprise you at the most inconvenient time. Incremental backups in a daily cronjob tend to transfer very small amounts of data, so you won't notice the slowness until you try to do a full restore. And you generally don't test that very often because you pay for server-to-client transfers.
There are some workarounds for 3) and there's a FAQ about it, but look at the mailing list and you'll see that it's something that surprises people again and again.
Amazon has Pre-Pay in a semi-open beta.
CloudFront has 1TB/month free- knocking a large chunk of a restore's cost. (Note- you should have either encrypted your stuff yourself and/or S3 authorization/access control still works over CF)
At what seems to be <$2/mo per TB ($1/TB glacier Deep archive + 9cent/gb for metadata on S3 frequent access), no other solution comes close. The big issue is the lump cost of a restore. Which, is quickly worn down by being > $5/TiB/mo cheaper than anybody else.
Tarsnap, in contrast, has an explicit first-class ability to prevent a compromised client from damaging old backups.
It’s pretty simple to enable versioning and object lock on your S3 bucket, but it is another step if you’re using restic. Sure, if you just want all of that taken care of for you, you can use tarsnap, but you’re paying a 5x+ premium for it.
The other nice thing about restic is that since it’s just the client-side interface, it allows others to provide managed storage. Borgbase.com is a storage backend that is supported by Restic that supports append-only backups, and is cheaper than tarsnap.
https://restic.readthedocs.io/en/stable/030_preparing_a_new_...
I would like to see an explicit discussion of what permissions are needed for what operation. I would also like to see a clearly specified model in which backups can be created in a bucket with less than full permissions and, even after active attack by an agent with those same permissions, one can enumerate all valid backups in the bucket and be guaranteed to be able to correctly restore any backup as long as one can figure out which backup one wants to restore.
Instead there are random guides on medium.com describing a configuration that may or may not have the desired effect.
If you don’t understand S3 or don’t want to learn, then that’s fine, and you can pay the premium to tarsnap for simplifying it for you. But that’s your choice, not an issue with restic.
If you think differently, have you submitted a PR to restic’s docs to add the information you think should be there?
I think people are frequently trapped in some way of thinking (not sure exactly) that doesn't allow them to think of storage as anything other than Block based. They repeatedly try to reduce S3 to LBA's, or POSIX permissions (not even modern ACL type permissions), or some other comparison that falls apart quickly.
Best I've come up with is "an object is a burned CD-R." Even that falls apart though
For that matter, suppose an attacker modifies an object and replaces it with corrupt or malicious contents, and I detect it, and the previous version still exists. Can the restic client, as written, actually manage the process of restoring it? I do not want to need to patch the client as part of my recovery plan.
(Compare to Tarsnap. By all accounts, if you backup up, your data is there. But there are more than enough reports of people who are unable to usefully recover the data because the client is unbelievably slow. The restore tool needs to do what the user needs it to do in order for the backup to be genuinely useful.)
https://rustic.cli.rs/
restic, and my own computers and storage, and the occasional rented device (VPS or similar, typically)
i find that the hassle of setting up my stuff is still preferable than having to worry about managing bills, subscriptions, and third parties just changing their policies
Restic + rclone is a very nice combo. Works really well.
My main backups are on rsync.net, though.
And Restic is good quality software.
I'm carefully monitoring plakar in this space, wondering if anyone has experience with it and could share?
Looks like much for both Colin and us could be solved moving this away from AWS
Using something like restic or borgbackup+rclone is pretty much the same experience as tarsnap but a fraction of the price.
$3000 per TB-year is accurate to my knowledge, and yes, it is at least one, and probably two, orders of magnitude what you can get with more general purpose systems. Backblaze B2 is $72 per TB-year; AWS Glacier is $12 per TB-year I believe; purchasing two 20 TB Seagate drives for $300 apiece, mirroring them, and replacing them every 3 years gives you about $10 per TB-year (potentially - most of us don't have 20 TB to back up in our personal lives). Those are the best prices I've been able to find with some looking [2].
To me, when I was building out the digital resiliency audit, the pricing and model just seemed to tell me that tarsnap was for very specific kinds of critical data backups, and was not a great fit for general purpose stuff. Like a lot of other people here I also have a general-purpose restic based 3-2-1 backup going for the ~150 GB in /home I back up. [3] My use of tarsnap is partly a cheap hedge for the handful of bytes of data I genuinely cannot afford to lose against issues with restic, Backblaze B2, systemd, etc.
[1]: https://hiandrewquinn.github.io/tarsnap-calculator/
[2]: https://andrew-quinn.me/digital-resiliency-2025/#postscript-...
[3]: https://andrew-quinn.me/digital-resiliency-2025/#general-bac...
> Tarsnap uses a prepaid model based on actual usage: Storage: 250 picodollars / byte-month of encoded data ($0.25 / GB-month) Bandwidth: 250 picodollars / byte of encoded data ($0.25 / GB)
I use Backblaze B2 myself for most of my general purpose backup needs. It's actually $6/month, I believe.
Tarsnap fills but one niche in my overall system. It's a very important niche for which I haven't found any other providers who do anything similar (keyfiles, prepaid, borderline anonymous etc), but it's not where I store the vast majority of my stuff.
[1]: https://hiandrewquinn.github.io/tarsnap-calculator/
One use case: I don't like the idea of having any accounts at all which I log into without the aid of a password manager. That creates a bootstrapping problem - how am I supposed to log into Google Drive to get my Google Drive password? A prepaid keyfile-based model is one particularly robust way of solving this. You stick your e.g. 100 kB password database in there, print out and shred the keyfile, stick the printout in a fireproof safe, and be virtually certain that whatever you put in Tarsnap has been untouched however many years you come back to it later. Print it on archival paper with some silica gel packets and it might survive for millennia in your weird subterranean vampire family castle.
"The business won't survive that long." I'm not so sure. Its ongoing costs appear minimal, and it generates eye watering amounts of float. $5 paid today is >$200 fifty years from now when compounded at 8% real interest. That very fact makes it much more likely that Tarsnap actually will survive for those 50 years, which should make us more likely to trust it, which... You see where this is going. This is one of those things where aggressively pricing too close to the bare metal costs might actually be a bad thing to a very important subset of users. One might even make the argument that, if the margins are as good as I'm supposing they are, then depending on the goals of the founder, Tarsnap is more likely to outlive S3 than S3 Tarsnap.
But again: Primarily a hobby.
[1]: https://andrew-quinn.me/digital-resiliency-2025/
https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1187538?sjid=3244...
print those and password, stick the printout in a fireproof safe
You might be tempted to think: it's a popular service, it can't be that bad.
But, it really can be, and if you've not tried it yourself, you'll only find out when you need it. Which could be way too late.
will tell you the compressed size of your deduplicated data, which gives you the upload cost and first-month cost. 4GB of files usually works out to 3GB of dedup/compressed archive data for most people, less for people with many similar files.
I'm backing up about 8TiB of data nightly using BorgBackup[0] + InterServer[1] and pay $240/yr.
This gives me differential encrypted rotating backups that are 100% mine and do not lock me into any specific storage vendor.
[0] https://borgbackup.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
[1] https://www.interserver.net/storage/
https://www.hetzner.com/storage/storage-box/
The only real security feature missing is write-only access to the repository (Borg backup in theory supports it, but in practice it's impossible to use it in a way that prevents a compromised host from deleting it's backups - like tarsnap does).
In theory it is less reliable than tarsnap (AWS S3 compared to a single copy on a Hetzner's drive).
Storage Box is significantly cheaper for any kind of real-life backup sizes in my experience.
Borg requires more work to setup and configure compared to tarsnap. There's typically some scripting involved that's unique to your setup and I found that I had more documentation to study before I understood how to use Borg correctly.
A know a few people that have very low opinion of Borg's code quality and stay away from it because of it (I haven't studied it first hand)
The cheapest I can find for a consumer buying e.g. 20TB Seagate hard drives and rotating them every 3 years or so is about $5 per TB-year, without mirroring. So if raw storage cost optimization is what you're after that's what I'd go for to start. Even AWS Glacier doesn't come close to that, although you do get other things with it.
through you want at least one backup of yours to be off site, and your want your backups robust, so comparing hard drive cost seem strange as if you run the backup server yourself you need a decent raid and for the offline backup you need to compare with idk. S3 storage cost or similar
it's still more expensive but if you only need to backup some folders of documents or similar it might anyway be the simpler and cheaper solution
if you want to backup huge photo/video/vm image collections it probably isn't the best choice for you
but if you need to backup you photo
I think tarsnap was a good service about 20 years ago when it had little competition, but using it now makes very little sense IMHO. You can donate to its awesome FreeBSD maintainer, or to FreeBSD, directly.
Borgbase had a week long (IIRC) outage due to a failed attempt to add new drives to an array. As far as I know they never published a post-mortem on this and have never discussed how they're going to improve their disaster recovery so it can't happen again. It's difficult to recommend when they could leave you without working backups for an entire week.
Also you can back up to the hard drive under your friend's bed, and they can back up to the hard drive under your bed.
If you're even slightly technical, or have a friend who is, I'd recommend both of you buying the cheapest Kirkwood NASes you can find on ebay, throwing Debian on them, and becoming each other's backup buddies.
https://forum.doozan.com/read.php?2,12096
Storing one terabyte of data in tarsnap costs $250 per month.
Also cozy if your data fits. No monthly fee, just the cost of new/recycled thumbies
It also doesn't require a UL Class 125 fireproofed safe to survive a house fire, but that's splitting hairs and getting into hobbyist territory.