Has anyone looked at system overhead (memory use, CPU) of Arq vs. Backblaze?
Interesting read for people that use Are to back up cloud-based files:
1 Like
Iāve never used Backblazeās software. But, FWIW, if Arqās menu bar icon didnāt show when it was backing up I wouldnāt know. Thatās been the case even when I was using a base model MacBook Pro in 2012.
Today I have an M4 MacBook Air which shows usage of around 15% CPU and 220mb memory when backing up to a local SSD or Backblaze B2.
I run Arq on the base model MacBook Air M1 with only 8 GB of RAM. Usually, the only time I notice Arq is when it sends me an email that a backup failed.
(except for this issue yesterdayā¦ - and even then only because Mister Plimsoll warned me about using > 90% of my 256 GB SSD)
1 Like
Thanks, @WayneG and @rob. Itās been many years since Iāve used Arq, so it is good to know that the overhead is low. Unfortunately, since I posted, I realized my Backblaze account runs through November, so Iāll be sticking with it for now. I was tempted to switch nonetheless, as during this whole process, I discovered that at some point recently, Backblaze stopped backing up my Mac entirely. I had to download the latest version to get it working again. Thatās on me for not checking periodically, but alarming nonetheless.
1 Like
I tried Arq, and it simply didnāt work on my system. Configuration was very difficult, but more than that simply checking a box could break the whole system.
So I tried iDrive again and I have been very favorably impressed. No unexplained error messages. Restores work fine. It is easy to configure and use, though I did have an AI guide me through the settings. I just had an EHD die, completely unusable, and I easily downloaded from iDrive an important 120GB file that otherwise would have been lost. Iām still doing local backups (Time Machine and Carbon Copy Cloner), but no longer feel they are as important with iDrive working so well.
1 Like