rdiff-backup vs Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup

A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted backup & recovery options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.

Not the right match-up? Compare rdiff-backup with Compare Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup with

RD rdiff-backup Reverse-incremental backups preserving file history VS BA Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup Time Machine-style backups for Linux and macOS using rsync

Feature	rdiff-backup	Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup
Deploy effort	Read-the-docs project	Read-the-docs project
Health score	65 · Good	30 · At risk
Category	Backup & Recovery	Backup & Recovery
License	GPL-2.0	MIT
Language	Python	Shell
Setup difficulty	Medium	Easy
Min. RAM	64 MB	32 MB
Deployment	binary	binary
GitHub stars	★ 1,267	★ 3,609
First released	2001	2014
Replaces	Time Machine	Time Machine

What are rdiff-backup and Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup?

rdiff-backup

rdiff-backup backs up one directory to another, keeping the latest copy plus reverse diffs for older versions. It preserves permissions, ownership, and special files while working over SSH.

Reverse-incremental storage
Preserves file metadata
Works over SSH

Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup

rsync-time-backup is a script that provides Time Machine-style incremental backups using rsync. It creates hard-linked snapshots so each backup appears as a full copy while saving disk space.

Time Machine-style snapshots
Hard-link deduplication
Single portable script

rdiff-backup vs Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup: key differences

Rdiff-backup is written in Python, while Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup is built with Shell. Licensing differs — GPL-2.0 for rdiff-backup versus MIT for Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup. Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup is the lighter option, starting around 32 MB of RAM against 64 MB for rdiff-backup. Rdiff-backup is the more established project (first released 2001), while Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup arrived in 2014. Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup has the considerably larger community, at 3,609 GitHub stars versus 1,267.

Why pick each one

Choose rdiff-backup if…

Released under the GPL-2.0 license
Active community (1.3k GitHub stars)
Written in Python
Tiny footprint — runs in 64 MB RAM

rdiff-backup details

Choose Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup if…

Released under the MIT license
Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
Active community (3.6k GitHub stars)
Written in Shell

Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup details

Frequently asked questions

Is rdiff-backup or Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup better?

Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider rdiff-backup if its specific feature set fits your needs better.

Are rdiff-backup and Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup free and open-source?

Yes. rdiff-backup is licensed under GPL-2.0 and Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run rdiff-backup and Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup with Docker?

rdiff-backup: check the project docs for container support. Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup: check the project docs for container support.

Which is lighter on resources, rdiff-backup or Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup?

Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup has the smaller minimum footprint at 32 MB of RAM, compared to about 64 MB for rdiff-backup. Real-world usage depends on library size, user count, and enabled features.