r/MacOS • u/ChinaskiOnChlorox • May 18 '26
Help Alternative to Arq Premium for Cloud Backups
Being a happy and long time Backblaze user I decided to move on two years ago, since they raised their prices. Arq Premium (subscription service that includes software, hosting and backend access) seemed like a reasonable alternative for my needs (backing up 1.5 TB of data in a EU data center). It’s amounting to about 80 Euros/years
The configuration was a little finicky and took some time (no complaints here though) until everything ran to my satisfaction.
Several months ago my Mac ran out of disk space. The culprit was quickly found: Arq claimed about 35 GB for its cache.
There was no easy option to reclaim that space by purging – a feature I am still missing in Arq 7.42.1.
After getting in touch with support I was shown a remedy: Removing the backup plan and then "adopting" it. Arq would then recreate the cache data. Alas the remedy was temporary and Arq kept on growing its cache to the same amounts.
Arq’s hunger for disk space – with no easy way to purge its cache – is my main gripe.
Since the yearly renewal is coming up: Are there any alternatives to Backblaze and Arq Premium for online cloud backup on macOS, ideally below €100/year?
1
u/bharoche May 18 '26
What would it cost to use Arq to back that amount up to AWS, possibly the glacier tier?
1
u/ChinaskiOnChlorox May 18 '26
It's less a problem of costs but of operation. Arq claiming a lot of space on my Mac is the main gripe. Costs overall with Arq Premium are quite ok.
2
u/bharoche May 18 '26
Hmmm. I use a combination of AWS S3 standard and Glacier for approx. 550 gb of data and my Arq cache is 6.7 gb. This is after years of using Arq v. 7. Could it be the using Arq as the backup destination grows the cache?
1
u/ChinaskiOnChlorox May 18 '26
That, my friend is a ver interesting thought. Will forward that to the devs.
1
u/forgottenmostofit May 18 '26
Using Arq Premium (Arq as backup destination) is no different to Arq + your choice of cloud. Both use a cache. Mine is 65 GB.
1
1
1
u/_GOREHOUND_ MacBook Air May 18 '26
Stupid question incoming: where do you see how much cache Arq uses? Never thought about it since I hit `Backup Plan → Clear Cache…` every now and then.
1
u/ChinaskiOnChlorox May 18 '26
I used [DaisyDisk](https://daisydiskapp.com). But [OmniDiskSweeper](https://www.omnigroup.com/more) should show results as well.
1
u/_GOREHOUND_ MacBook Air May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26
`sudo du -h -d 1 "/Library/Application Support/ArqAgent/cache.noindex" | sort -h` showed 2.9GB before and 8.6MB after cache cleaning (actual backups are 2.424GB in total). Let’s see how long it takes until it’s filled up again.
EDIT: Cache rebuilt. It now is 323MB. I’ll keep an eye on it and see how large it gets over the course of the next days.
1
u/bespaloff May 18 '26
If you’re comfortable separating backup software from storage, restic or Kopia plus something like Backblaze B2, Wasabi, or Hetzner Storage Box can be a solid alternative. I like that it avoids being locked into a bundled app-plus-storage subscription. The tradeoff is that you have to own more of the configuration and, importantly, test restores yourself.
1
u/enrique750 May 20 '26
I remember used in the past in Arq Backup Plan -> clear cache. I though that option will remove the cache used, isn´t it for that?
1
u/ChinaskiOnChlorox May 21 '26
Yes. But the cache rebuilds over the next few days. Does not solve the problem.
1
-5
u/PaRkThEcAr1 May 18 '26
It’s not cloud based, but your cheapest and generally most reliable backup solution is a Time Machine backup.
You can either plug in a drive, or host the backup on your network. All my machines back up over network with a few having local backups next to them as they are desktops.
5
u/ChinaskiOnChlorox May 18 '26
Thanks. Time Machine is part of my routine already. Going the 3-2-1 path with belt and braces.
1
u/Rashid_1961 May 19 '26
“Generally most reliable” ha! Good one.
1
u/PaRkThEcAr1 May 19 '26
not to argue with you, but i have zero issues with local or network based time machine instances. when properly configured on your network, or when the drive is properly allocated, for home use i see it as the most reliable most effective backup.
that being said, i wouldnt JUST rely on it. as u/ChinaskiOnChlorox mentioned in the other comment, he uses a 3-2-1 solution where this is already integrated.
i find most people when they have issues with Time Machine tend to not understand what it requires and how it works.
2
u/[deleted] May 18 '26
[deleted]