On 12. 08. 25 21:03, Craig wrote:
But 92 hours for just *some* of my data?! (That's just under four full
sleeps, in case that's not obvious.) I obviously didn't get all 350 GB,
but even if the last byte managed to slip through just as my balance
hit zero at the 92-hour mark, that's a download rate of 350 GB per 92
hours, or 3.8 GB per hour ... and *significantly* less than 350 GB got
through so, of course, the *rate* was *significantly* slower. Although
I don't know enough to write or understand formulae like "O(N log N + N
· M log M)", I know that 3.8 GB per hour is *significantly* slower than
the download speed I just tested/measured of 93 Mbps. (I feel the need
to state that I know the difference between a bit and a byte.)
I'll just add a "me too".
Using tarsnap for many years on a few machines has been a very
trouble-free experience. The amount of data stored in backups slowly
grew. Thankfully I never needed to do a full restore in anger. But only
recently it dawned on me that if disaster would struck a full restore
would now be a week-long affair.
Recently I downloaded some full backups from tarsnap and averaged
somewhere around 50 kB/s (kilo-bytes per second, uncompressed) on a host
with a 100 Mbps link.
I'm not sure if these download rates are a technical limitation or
downloads are throttled by country or average monthly spend or
something, but maybe it's something that should be displayed as
prominently on the website as the download and storage prices.
Best regards
Tomaž
