Simple-tab-groups: Backups are too large.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Even with all of 'include x in backups', a month of hourly backups is a GiB or so. This is fine by me, as I already made a script to offload older backups off-site.
This though might become problematic, when backups go more frequent than hourly. I've been planning to do one every 10 minutes, or even 5.
Describe the solution you'd like
Diffs for backups within the larger unit of interval. Current intervals available: daily/hourly.
If hourly backups, make one full backup daily, the next ones being diffs. If using daily, full backup weekly (or cap min interval of full backup to daily).
Describe alternatives you've considered
I mean I could do that with scripts, plus added compression, but that would only benefit me.
jtagcat
All 5 comments
Diffs
Is this possible within the constraints of WebExtensions API?
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions
grahamperrin
on 22 Feb 2021
jfyi for anyone looking for a solution, deduplicated fs is a thing.
jtagcat
on 22 Feb 2021
If you'd like to implement (de)compression maybe the author would be happy to receive a merge request for it. Even with zip compression (rather than 7z/lzma/xz etc.) it reduces the filesize by roughly 80% (down to 21.5% of the original filesize). XZ compression brings it down further to 17.8% of the original size, but if this is significantly more complex to implement (?) then that sounds like overengineering to me.
Alternatively, maybe "automatically delete backup files older than 1 month" could be an option, if the webextensions API even allows that (?)
Personally, I don't see why you would need/want more than hourly backups though (I used to have them daily only, and have now switched to "every 5 hours" because I'm paranoid, but beyond that, I don't see a high likelihood of data loss, personally).
For me, a whole months of every-five-hours backups weighs 42 megabytes (note that my backups do not include thumbnails and favicons; I don't see why anyone would care about that in auto backups). So on my end, the filesizes are hardly a problem at all. It seems to me like your problem is more of a corner case that few users encounter in practice, so unless someone proposes a merge request for it, I doubt it'd be a priority for the maintainer...
nekohayo
on 1 Mar 2021
Thank you,
… maybe "automatically delete backup files older than 1 month" …
â–¶ https://github.com/Drive4ik/simple-tab-groups/issues/506#issuecomment-572841882
grahamperrin
on 1 Mar 2021
@nekohayo
Alternatively, maybe "automatically delete backup files older than 1 month" could be an option, if the webextensions API even allows that (?)
There is no such thing. No direct access to the disk. Not anymore. It's too insecure. FF restriction.
Drive4ik
on 3 Aug 2021
Related issues
stinos
·
4Comments
ajvsol
·
6Comments
HASJ
·
3Comments
victoriastuart
·
5Comments
kstev99
·
4Comments
Most helpful comment
If you'd like to implement (de)compression maybe the author would be happy to receive a merge request for it. Even with zip compression (rather than 7z/lzma/xz etc.) it reduces the filesize by roughly 80% (down to 21.5% of the original filesize). XZ compression brings it down further to 17.8% of the original size, but if this is significantly more complex to implement (?) then that sounds like overengineering to me.
Alternatively, maybe "automatically delete backup files older than 1 month" could be an option, if the webextensions API even allows that (?)
Personally, I don't see why you would need/want more than hourly backups though (I used to have them daily only, and have now switched to "every 5 hours" because I'm paranoid, but beyond that, I don't see a high likelihood of data loss, personally).
For me, a whole months of every-five-hours backups weighs 42 megabytes (note that my backups do not include thumbnails and favicons; I don't see why anyone would care about that in auto backups). So on my end, the filesizes are hardly a problem at all. It seems to me like your problem is more of a corner case that few users encounter in practice, so unless someone proposes a merge request for it, I doubt it'd be a priority for the maintainer...