CodeMirror/ArchiveBox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of synced 2024-05-16 10:23:51 +12:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update README.md

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Nick Sweeting 2019-03-19 01:25:00 -04:00 committed by GitHub
parent a868dc320c
commit 6a75e8f7cd
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 4 additions and 2 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

6
README.md
View file

@ -154,13 +154,15 @@ I don't think everything should be preserved in an automated fashion, making all
ArchiveBox differentiates itself from [similar projects](https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox/wiki/Web-Archiving-Community#Web-Archiving-Projects) by being simple, one-shot CLI inferface for users to ingest builk feeds of URLs over extended periods, as opposed to being a backend service that ingests individual, manually-submitted URLs from a web UI.
An alternative tool [pywb](https://github.com/webrecorder/pywb) allows you to run a browser through an always-running archiving proxy which records the traffic to WARC files. ArchiveBox intends to support this style of live proxy-archiving using `pywb` in the future, but for now it only ingests lists of links at a time via browser history, bookmarks, RSS, etc.
#### Private Local Archives vs Centralized Public Archives
Unlike crawler software that starts from a seed URL and works outwards, or public tools like Archive.org designed for users to manually submit links from the public internet, ArchiveBox tries to be a set-and-forget archiver suitable for archiving your entire browsing history, RSS feeds, or bookmarks, including private/authenticated content that you wouldn't otherwise share with a centralized service.
Because ArchiveBox is designed to ingest a firehose of browser history and bookmark feeds to a local disk, it can be much more disk-space intensive than a centralized service like the Internet Archive or Archive.today. However, as storage space gets cheaper and compression improves, you should be able to use it continuously over the years without having to delete anything. In my experience, ArchiveBox uses about 5gb per 1000 articles, but your milage may vary depending on which options you have enabled and what types of sites you're archiving. By default, it archives everything in as many formats as possible, meaning it takes more space than a using a single method, but more content is accurately replayable over extended periods of time. Storage requirements can be reduced by using a compressed/deduplicated filesystem like ZFS/BTRFS, or by setting `FETCH_MEDIA=False` to skip audio & video files.
#### Storage Requirements
An alternative tool [pywb](https://github.com/webrecorder/pywb) allows you to run a browser through an archiving proxy which records all traffic to WARC files. ArchiveBox intends to natively support live proxy-archiving using `pywb` in the future, but for now it only ingests chunks of links at a time via browser history, bookmarks, RSS, etc.
Because ArchiveBox is designed to ingest a firehose of browser history and bookmark feeds to a local disk, it can be much more disk-space intensive than a centralized service like the Internet Archive or Archive.today. However, as storage space gets cheaper and compression improves, you should be able to use it continuously over the years without having to delete anything. In my experience, ArchiveBox uses about 5gb per 1000 articles, but your milage may vary depending on which options you have enabled and what types of sites you're archiving. By default, it archives everything in as many formats as possible, meaning it takes more space than a using a single method, but more content is accurately replayable over extended periods of time. Storage requirements can be reduced by using a compressed/deduplicated filesystem like ZFS/BTRFS, or by setting `FETCH_MEDIA=False` to skip audio & video files.
## Read more