PDA

View Full Version : Which is your backup technique?



Carlocki
09-19-2011, 08:58 AM
Hi guys which is your backup techniques?

erikals
09-19-2011, 09:46 AM
copy>paste :]

use "search"... (top row) there are some threads on it ;]

biliousfrog
09-19-2011, 10:13 AM
Local data on 3 disc RAID5, copied daily onto network storage (3x1TB RAID5 + 1TB hot spare).

Mr Rid
09-19-2011, 10:36 AM
copy>paste :]

Thats what I do each night.

RTSchramm
09-19-2011, 11:28 AM
I use a Raid 1 with 2 2TB hard drives with two 2TB external drives that I swap out each week which are stored in a safety deposit box.

The backup software I use is Aronis True Image 2012. I also copy the Acronis True Image Software and CD key to a CD, and I also create a bootable recovery CD from the installed TrueImage software that is installed on my system. These two CDs' are also stored in my safety deposit box. Note that you can also use a fire proof container, but make sure that you store it in the basement because these containers are usually rate for an hour at most and fire tends to move upward as its fuel is expended.

My backup scheme is one full and six differential backups per week. Differentials store only that change in the hard drive since the last full backup so they are smaller in size than a full backup. For example my first full backup is 515 GB, that next differential is 516 MB, the next differential is 1.2 GB etc.

If you encrypt data on your computer, you will need to export your encryption key to a file and either save it on a CD and store it somewhere safe, or send it to yourself through an external email account such as hotmail, Gmail, etc.

I you should lost your data due to a fire such as I have, you can use Seagate's I386 service to recover your data. My original 1 TB hard drive costed me $1200 to recover. So now you know why I am so paranoid.

Note that I currently have about 252 programs installed in my new system. Also note that Acronis True image 2012 will allow you to restore your backup image over new hardware. Acronis True Image will also allow you to open your backup images and recover individual files is you need them. And one other neat feature of Acronis True image is that once you register the software on their web site, the install files and CD keys can be downloaded at any time should you lose your local copy.

Rich

RTSchramm
09-19-2011, 11:31 AM
I was looking into using an online backup service, but I have Comcast as an Internet provider, so I have a 250 GB limit per month, and since my data is over 500 GBs, it would be impracticable for me to use an online service.

Rich

Titus
09-19-2011, 11:33 AM
RAID 1 w/1 TB box + gigabit ethernet + Create Synchronicity.

biliousfrog
09-19-2011, 11:41 AM
I guess I'd better state that I use Windows 7's backup utility to save the data from the workstations to the NAS. I used to use a 'professional' backup tool (can't even remember what it was called) but the windows one seems to do more for less (free).

Cageman
09-19-2011, 12:08 PM
Hmm...

At home I always work towards my fileserver. The folder structure that is related to content is automaticly backed up by the server to a second disc, using this tool. (http://allwaysync.com/) It is setup to backup on filechanges, so only the files that are changed are copied over.

Every now and then I also use another tool that copies the same stuff over to a USB drive, but this one (https://www.ascomp.de/index.php?php=prog&prog=backupmaker) also zip the content.

:)

MentalFish
09-19-2011, 12:13 PM
Internal two disc Raid 0 (4TB) that is constantly on via Time Machine backing up SSD system drive and 2TB content drive + external Raid 5 (6TB) that is used for weekly-ish backups of the system + storage. Redundancy FTW :) Looking for an off site solution too. Any suggestions?

meatycheesyboy
09-19-2011, 12:20 PM
12TB Windows Home Server with folder duplication. I don't have an offsite solution unfortunately.

erikals
09-19-2011, 12:31 PM
Internal two disc Raid 0 (4TB) that is constantly on via Time Machine backing up SSD system drive and 2TB content drive + external Raid 5 (6TB) that is used for weekly-ish backups of the system + storage. Redundancy FTW :) Looking for an off site solution too. Any suggestions?

another cool Avatar, hehe... :]

think i'd just buy an extra HDD,
and use a simple free app to copy the data to the other drive each night...
 

Andrewstopheles
09-19-2011, 12:43 PM
Microsoft SyncToy and a second HD.
Also once in a while Archive a copy of the whole thing onto a third portable drive in case of electric shock or fire.

Paul_Boland
09-19-2011, 12:59 PM
I'm surprised to see so many people running RAID. I don't use RAID setups in my systems. They might speed up your data access but they are more prone to failure.

For backup, I have two sources.

1. External Harddrive.
Once every month I do a full system backup of all my work files to an external hard drive. It is then packed away and awaits next months backup. That way if I do suffer a major crash and lose of data, the most I can loose is one months worth (which can be a hell of a lot too but I'm happy enough to work on that premise).

2. Optical Disc.
I have a folder on my Desktop called Create Disc. In here, everytime I get a new file online or I create a new file (be it 3D, Word, Prublisher, movies, sounds, whatever), I copy it from its saved location into this folder. When it hits 4.3Gb I burn it off to DVD, delete all the stuff in the folder and start again. Unlike my external harddrive backup, there is no set schedule to when I burn a backup optical disc, it all comes down to when it hits the 4.3Gb mark. When I get a new PC (please let it rain money!!), I'm getting one with a bluray burner in it and then my burn mark will be 25Gb.

SBowie
09-19-2011, 01:15 PM
They might speed up your data access but they are more prone to failure.I think you may be thinking only of the so-called RAID 0, or stripeset, Paul. While fast, and cheaper, they are definitely not a solution when you are looking for failsafe performance. However the whole notion behind RAID in general is to provide failsafe storage. Several of the other RAID types (1, 1+0, 3 and 5, for instance) provide excellent protection against failure.

TalleyJC
09-19-2011, 01:16 PM
I use Acronis to completely copy my system drive weekly, and specific project folders daily to another 3tb drive. If I'm doing something specifically hairy I use the constant backup feature which grabs what I tell it to every time a change is made

SBowie
09-19-2011, 01:37 PM
I work at home, but have multiple b/u strategies in place. We have secure version controlled storage, so I use that for one thing. In addition, I love my Black Armor NAS (I'm pretty sure the software that came with it is a re-badged version of Acronis). I use that for weekly incremental system drive and documents b/u. In addition, I run SyncToy manually whenever I feel like it to have immediately accessible (i.e., simple file format) copies of my projects, docs, images, downloads archive, etc., on a second hard drive as well as the NAS.

Redundancy isn't always bad!

Cryonic
09-19-2011, 01:41 PM
I think you may be thinking only of the so-called RAID 0, or stripeset, Paul. While fast, and cheaper, they are definitely not a solution when you are looking for failsafe performance. However the whole notion behind RAID in general is to provide failsafe storage. Several of the other RAID types (1, 1+0, 3 and 5, for instance) provide excellent protection against failure.

RAID 0 is striping. RAID 0 provides no failsafe against failure.
RAID 1 is mirror. Takes an even number of drives to do this
RAID 1+0 (sometimes called RAID 10) combines RAID 1 with RAID 0. Requires an even number of drives (4 or more else you just have RAID 1) with the matched drives being the same size. It mirrors 2 drives and then stripes the collections of drives together.
RAID 0+1 does the opposite of RAID 1+0. It stripes drives together then mirrors them to the other collection of striped drives.
RAID 5 takes a minimum of 3 drives. It writes the XOR of two drives to the third, so if any one drive fails it can rebuild it.
RAID 6 takes a minimum of 4 drives. It is similar to 5 except that it can suffer the loss of up to 2 drives at a time and still rebuild.

Each RAID mode has its advantages and disadvantages in terms of performance. RAID 0 is the fastest for writes. RAID 1 and 5/6 are good for read performance with RAID 1 being slightly faster at writes over 5 and 6.

SBowie
09-19-2011, 01:43 PM
Each RAID mode has its advantages and disadvantages in terms of performance.Yes, I know, thanks, but I'm sure we all appreciate the reminders.

biliousfrog
09-19-2011, 02:05 PM
The big problem with RAID is that with each disk you increase the chance of a potential failure to the array. This is especially dangerous when building a RAID array with drives from the same manufacturer, bought at the same time, from the same source. Most often when you hear of a RAID failure it is because all of the drives have died before they have had a chance to repair themselves.

Someone here was stunned recently that all of their drives failed within moments but it actually makes a lot of sense. If you buy all the drives from the same reseller at the same time they are likely to have been made from the same batch of components, at the same factory...and all of those components would have been made at the same time within the same tolerances and with the same potential weaknesses. The drives will be used at almost exactly the same moment for almost exactly the same amount of time in almost exactly the same environment...it is extremely likely that, if one of the drives fails due to a mechanical issue, all of them will go at the same time.

So, if you're going to use RAID (and it makes a lot of sense to), you should consider buying the drives from different places, using enterprise drives if you can afford it and incrementally replace them regularly.

Paul_Boland
09-19-2011, 02:08 PM
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't actually know that there were multiple versions of RAID, I was only aware of RAID 0, splitting the files across two drives. I've just been Googling it and reading about the different versions. Thanks!!

SBowie
09-19-2011, 02:14 PM
Most often when you hear of a RAID failure it is because all of the drives have died before they have had a chance to repair themselves. That's quite interesting to think about. I don't think I've ever heard this view before. Thanks for sharing. Perhaps it makes a case for replacing a couple of drives long before they might be expected to fail, reducing the risk of multiple simultaneous failures.

Cryonic
09-19-2011, 02:18 PM
With the latest batch of IDE type drives (now SATA) I would strongly recommend using Enterprise drives rather than the el cheapo drives you can find at most resellers (e.g. Best Buy, Fry's Electronics, etc...) and get a decent controller. Spend a little more as it will make a big difference in the long run.
One problem I've heard of when not using Enterprise drives is the Array timing out while doing a rebuild which caused the whole array to be considered dead. And with it went all the data on it.

Myagi
09-19-2011, 04:12 PM
I backup to a little custom built LAN file server, which has two HDs, one is usually offline (with a physical switch) and only switched on when doing a periodical mirroring of drive 1 to 2. That also reduces the risk of both drives failing at the same time even though they're from the same batch.

Then I also backup the more important stuff to an online storage service.

And as another redundancy I also backup the really important stuff to a USB stick I always take with me.

Since I prefer simpler and customizable (per session) control of backups, and all available software I could find wasn't quite what I was picturing, I made my own rsync front-end. Rsync has delta-copy so only changed data is transferred. It's used for all backup destinations (LAN server, online storage and USB stick).

COBRASoft
09-19-2011, 04:35 PM
I'm surprised nobody is using Mozy (home). It's a very easy online backup with 30 days recovery. I use it for everything on my system that needs a backup. The latest version does the same backup on a local disk as extra backup. You guys should check it out, they have business plans as well.

Titus
09-19-2011, 04:46 PM
No information goes outside these four walls. No online backup, no cloud.

Dexter2999
09-19-2011, 04:50 PM
The big problem with RAID is that with each disk you increase the chance of a potential failure to the array. This is especially dangerous when building a RAID array with drives from the same manufacturer, bought at the same time, from the same source. Most often when you hear of a RAID failure it is because all of the drives have died before they have had a chance to repair themselves.

Someone here was stunned recently that all of their drives failed within moments but it actually makes a lot of sense. If you buy all the drives from the same reseller at the same time they are likely to have been made from the same batch of components, at the same factory...and all of those components would have been made at the same time within the same tolerances and with the same potential weaknesses. The drives will be used at almost exactly the same moment for almost exactly the same amount of time in almost exactly the same environment...it is extremely likely that, if one of the drives fails due to a mechanical issue, all of them will go at the same time.

So, if you're going to use RAID (and it makes a lot of sense to), you should consider buying the drives from different places, using enterprise drives if you can afford it and incrementally replace them regularly.

I'm not sure that I agree with any of this. Sorry.

Your back up RAID isn't used as much as your local or server drives necessarily. Yes your RAID could fail all at once but that is sort of the point in backing up in the first place. And should it not fail all at once but one drive fail before others it could serve as a warning to back up and replace all drives.

I am in the camp that looks at people who back up to a single drive as saying "Hey why put eggs in all those baskets when we can carry them in this one single basket? You know carrying all those baskets you are probably going to drop one."

Myagi
09-19-2011, 05:20 PM
I'm surprised nobody is using Mozy (home).

I used that on my old computer, it was nice (at the time the most appealing of the free services). Then at some point I had to update their client, but the thing failed miserably to install IIRC (tech support couldn't help). Before that I also always had trouble downloading their offline tools, the download got aborted each time. I tried from several computers and browsers over the span of a longer time period but nothing helped, and tech support (allthough friendly and responsive) couldn't help me at all. Then I think the account got killed after having been idle for a longer period.

All those things made me come to the conclusion that the only acceptable online solution for me, is one that doesn't require any propriety software, they just supply storage space and a handful of standard protocols (for which there are loads of apps in all variations and platforms) to access it. That also allows me to mount the storage like a networked drive if I so desire.

eagleeyed
09-19-2011, 05:50 PM
I personally use the website www.backblaze.com, here be the reasons why. :P

- Its only $5 a month for unlimited storage.
- It actually is reliable, its saved me twice.
- It only uploads the files to the server that change after the inital backup, so no excess uploads, it also detects duplicate files and only uploads them once.
- It saves incriments of files for a certain time, so if you make a change, save it then go OH CRUD!, shouldn't have done that, within 5 minutes you have your old file again.
- You don't need to do anything once it is setup, it does everything automatically yet easy to check for piece of mind.
- Its not hosted at your home/workplace, so if you have a fire or other damage, still dont lose your files.

I have been using it for a year now, application has not failed to backup once, I do now trust it to perform properly, and for $5 a month it is great value. They have been around for a while aswell.

More information if anyone is interested: http://www.backblaze.com/internet-backup.html

EDIT: See Mozy mentioned, I moved away from them when they reduced their value. A lot happier with Backblaze, application seems a lot better.

COBRASoft
09-20-2011, 01:29 AM
Eagleeyed: thx for the info. I haven't got any problems so far with mozy, but always interested in better solutions (specially when they're cheaper :)).

SBowie
09-20-2011, 06:16 AM
No information goes outside these four walls. No online backup, no cloud.And hopefully no fire ... :)


Since I prefer simpler and customizable (per session) control of backups, and all available software I could find wasn't quite what I was picturing, I made my own rsync front-end. Rsync has delta-copy so only changed data is transferred. It's used for all backup destinations (LAN server, online storage and USB stick).

For similar reasons, I can't believe I didn't discover SyncToy many years ago. It's childishly easy to use, has all of the requisite if basic options, and just plain handy as all get out - oh, and free.

biliousfrog
09-20-2011, 08:29 AM
I'm not sure that I agree with any of this. Sorry.

Your back up RAID isn't used as much as your local or server drives necessarily. Yes your RAID could fail all at once but that is sort of the point in backing up in the first place. And should it not fail all at once but one drive fail before others it could serve as a warning to back up and replace all drives.

I am in the camp that looks at people who back up to a single drive as saying "Hey why put eggs in all those baskets when we can carry them in this one single basket? You know carrying all those baskets you are probably going to drop one."

My point is not that RAID is bad but that using the same drives, from the same reseller, bought at the same time, in a RAID setup greatly increases the chance of total failure. As RAID is generally thought of as being a good idea for backups because of redundancy it is important to consider how your array is used and built.

If all of the drives in your RAID are from the same batch and one of them fails there is a very high chance that all the other drives will fail very shortly after with the same problem...it is very common.

creacon
09-20-2011, 09:14 AM
Using the same drives, from the same manufacturer and using the same firmware is in fact recommended for RAID usage.

All drives failing at once is something I never heard of before, and I would be very surprised if this happened on an A-brand RAID system (like HP, IBM, etc).

creacon


My point is not that RAID is bad but that using the same drives, from the same reseller, bought at the same time, in a RAID setup greatly increases the chance of total failure. As RAID is generally thought of as being a good idea for backups because of redundancy it is important to consider how your array is used and built.

If all of the drives in your RAID are from the same batch and one of them fails there is a very high chance that all the other drives will fail very shortly after with the same problem...it is very common.

art
09-20-2011, 09:43 AM
I personally use the website www.backblaze.com ...

The service looks interesting and the price is low. It seems that they backup your whole computer which is not exactly what I'm looking for. Do they have an option to backup specific folders/drives, etc?

kopperdrake
09-20-2011, 11:08 AM
Live projects live on a local RAID1 system, backed up at the end of the day automatically to an off-site server and also to a one-push-button backup system onsite taken directly from the RAID server, which I then take home with me. Completed projects get archived onsite and also offsite on different hard drives to the live projects.

In summary:

Live projects - 2 onsite backups and 2 offsite backup
Archived projects - 1 onsite backup and 1 offsite backup

I make a backup of my main machine using Windows 7, but to be honest, if any of the machines go down I just see it as a good time to reinstall a clean system :)

Loregrant
09-20-2011, 05:09 PM
I keep a content folder on my main workstation. I then have a scheduled task that runs a robocopy to NAS, and a cheap fileserver which was going to be my screamernet node, but i couldn't get it to work (i digress)

I just grabbed a blu-ray burner so i'm probably going to burn all that to blu-ray once a month or so

zapper1998
09-20-2011, 05:15 PM
Budweiser beer... Cold ...

Save all my Data, to my Network Storage, and my 2nd Network Storage unit, backs up my 1st unit
weekly..

eagleeyed
09-21-2011, 07:00 AM
The service looks interesting and the price is low. It seems that they backup your whole computer which is not exactly what I'm looking for. Do they have an option to backup specific folders/drives, etc?

Yes, just choose which drives you want it to backup, you can also specify any folders or file types you do not want it to backup.

I have about 500GB of data that could be backed up, however I dont see point in backing up recorded TV so just exclude those folders etc. Currently only backup 170GB of stuff.

It does have a 15 day free trial if you want to look at the program.

Also, forgot to mention, for all the people really paramount on security, you can specify your own encryption key for when its uploaded so even people at backblaze cannot read files.

Lastly, if network speed is important, can choose on a sliding scale what is more important, faster backups or faster network. :)

Disclaimer as I seem very pro on it: I do not have any affiliation with this company, just a very satisfied customer.

COBRASoft
09-21-2011, 10:55 AM
I forgot to add, I also use DOpus. 1 button with a command behind it to zip my work directory to an external hard disk with the current datetime added to the name of the zip :). Works like a charm.

Carlocki
09-28-2011, 07:55 AM
but why Lightwave do not implement a backup copy every saving of file?

Titus
09-28-2011, 08:11 AM
but why Lightwave do not implement a backup copy every saving of file?

LW do creates a backup copy of your file. It's just very hidden inside the HD.

K-Dawg
09-28-2011, 09:07 AM
I use a tool on Linux called "Back in Time". With that I can do individual backups and complete backups and it also creates revisions of backups so I can choose from backups at different history.

The cool thing with that also, I can do Backups with all Windows and NTFS Files Systems with ease.

Greetz

archijam
09-28-2011, 09:19 AM
Time machine ;)

wrench
09-28-2011, 10:37 AM
LW do creates a backup copy of your file. It's just very hidden inside the HD.

Not under 10, it's in the Content Directory by default, but no reason why you can't redirect it in Options > Paths. The auto save is regulated in Options > Gen

B

Hieron
09-28-2011, 07:16 PM
Several of the other RAID types (1, 1+0, 3 and 5, for instance) provide excellent protection against failure.

I believe that they do not. The provide excellent Redundancy, something a single drive in an operating environment can not give.

They seem great for backups, but my IT friends do not agree at all. Tons of possible issues come up (a risk worth taking for Redundancy, but not for backup). For pure backup, nothing beats multiple single disk backups, some kept offsite and not operating. On top of that,sure, running the fileserver/workstations in a raid setup could be a good option.. but for the true backup, no.

Just imho ofc. Or... well, theirs :)


See "Data backup" on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

ps: we do run raid here on the fileserver, hoping it would keep it up when 1 drive goes down. I got a spare drive at the ready for it. But the true backups are many 2 TB drives, partly kept offsite and not connected to a pc.

Mr Rid
09-28-2011, 07:51 PM
I dont trust raids after working at two different places where a raid drive failed and they lost significant data. For some reason they just didnt work as expected. I prefer to mirror.

SBowie
09-28-2011, 08:11 PM
I believe that they do not. The provide excellent Redundancy, something a single drive in an operating environment can not give.Semantics - the entire benefit of redundancy is "protection against failure".

SBowie
09-28-2011, 08:12 PM
I prefer to mirror.OK, but just to note it, mirroring is a form of RAID.

Philbert
09-29-2011, 01:06 AM
Does nobody use a Drobo (http://drobo.com/resources/drobodemo.php)? If I get this big job I was offered a few months back I intend to get one right away. I hear nothing but good about them.

LW_Will
09-29-2011, 02:14 AM
Drobo's are nice, but for backup only, not for working on the data or data acquisition.

Philbert
09-29-2011, 02:29 AM
Why not working straight off of it? I only want it for back up, but I'm curious.

Hieron
09-29-2011, 07:05 AM
Semantics - the entire benefit of redundancy is "protection against failure".

didn't expect that response. Considering this is an important topic, I'd like to reply.

It is not semantics. And no it is not the same. Redundancy like that protects against failure *in an operating environment*. The topic of this thread is "backup". Now, a good backup technique is not *in an operating environment*is it? If you think it is, that point should be discussed first.

Geez.. you could at least have considered the point made?

I'd like to think my friends learned something in the long years leading up to PhD's and working on projects for example ESA. Now I don't mean to suggest they graduated on raid, but they sure should have a good grasp of it. Better than most?

If the topic of this thread was "how to keep my services up and running without downtime", sure. Go raid and take the many downsides it has as there is little alternative, as I said, we did as well.

For *backup*, no. The reasons why not are plenty and easy to find. Many points of failures.. worth it if you need it (keep systems up), but a risk worth taking for backups? Backup is in itself very easy.. copy/paste.

Stating raid is perfect is a bit dangerous, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to reply again. I'd be interested to hear why raid is so ideal in this case. Considering all the pitfalls that is. Pitfalls a single 2TB drive does not have. A drive that can be easily copied to another and taken and stashed *anywhere* without any concern about usage scenario later on. You need SATA, that's it.

Try that with raid. Again, the topic is backup, not the need for redundancy to keep services alive and running. But I'm interested to hear why it is so ideal. If the reply is "redundancy is in the name! It must be awesome" I beg to differ. Also, as a primary failsafe, raid is not so ideal either. Even if it can be kept up (which is a big if, stories like Rid's are common), it doesn't protect against user error or other reasons for data corruption and viruses.

An offline, offsite, backup to single disks does.


OK, but just to note it, mirroring is a form of RAID.

I assume Mr. Rid means what I do as well. Keep a backup/mirror of data on 2 seperate disks. And store at a different place.

ps: to contribute a suggestion: personally I like the Sata swap brackets so you can slot in a 2TB drive almost as if it is USB. Arrive at work, hotswap in, copy paste everything, and take with you offsite at the end of the day. Very nice.

SBowie
09-29-2011, 09:20 AM
It is not semantics. And no it is not the same. Redundancy like that protects against failure *in an operating environment*.I really don't have time to waste arguing this, sorry. Redundancy, in the context of RAID, can take numerous forms. Perhaps that seems to be confusing the issue by imposing a narrow definition of the word. Nevertheless, a backup of any sort is a form of redundancy. And the entire purpose for taking refuge in that redundancy is generally to provide a fallback to protect against the loss of data due to failure or corruption of an original (or possibly, 'working') version of the data. (It has often been said that RAID 0 should not be called RAID at all, since it does not offer any Redundancy, and can fail catastrophically when just one drive dies; and it was in that context that I remarked that other RAID types do provide comparatively excellent protection - against failure of a single drive).


reĚdunĚdanĚcy    [ri-duhn-duhn-see] noun, plural -cies.
4. the provision of additional or duplicate systems, equipment, etc., that function in case an operating part or system fails, as in a spacecraft.

And by the way, I'm certainly not arguing against either offsite backup or simply duplicating data on other media for additional redundancy. Also, in my experience, the term "mirroring" is generally most often used in the context of simultaneously duplicating data on multiple drives (a.k.a., RAID 1), as opposed to doing a 'non-concurrent' copy/paste operation (automated) or not. Regardless, these are all forms of redundancy, and I personally use all three, as I've stated earlier.

Hieron
09-29-2011, 09:39 AM
haha.. Suit yourself. Be sure to post here when your controller dies, or a virus hit, or the motherboard died, or you had to recover a 12TB array. Will be fun to see how "perfectly suited for backup" that system really is.

You can quote dictionary meanings (really? I do have an education and I do know what redundancy means, even if it is not my native language. We dutch learn more than 1 language) that say the exact same thing I did (note "operating" in there? you were proving my point?) all day long. You can ignore my post about all the downsides of raid and ignore commenting your opinion on that part. You can ignore what Wikipedia thinks about. And you can ignore what the few specifically educated people I know think about it.

Be my guest, but if someone states RAID as "perfectly suited for backup", someone needs to step in and correct it. Whether he is a moderator or not.

Or do you perhaps have a better reason than "Omg it says redundant! in the name" for it being so perfect? Experience, educated in the field? Something?

I'm always willing to learn.. but getting dictionary quotes slapped in my face is not helping much. It said the very same thing I did.

I don't have time either btw.. but this feels so out of character for you, I'm mesmerized. Mind you, again, I'm not saying raid is not redundant. It is. We run it as well. But we don't rely on it for backups as it was never its intended use and the redundancy system comes at a high cost (points of failures increases alot) which is nonsense for backup.

Hieron
09-29-2011, 09:48 AM
Ok, don't take my word for it.

Just some first casual googling for "Raid Backup" as I am a helpfull guy that would not want a fellow LW'er to lose all his data?:

http://www.remotedatabackups.com/why/backup-raid-drive.cfm

quote:
"no IT professional worth his salt would ever consider using RAID as a substitute for a reliable daily backup - and neither should you. Protect yourself with Remote Data Backups!"

http://serverfault.com/questions/2888/why-is-raid-not-a-backup

quote:
"RAID guards against one kind of hardware failure. There's lots of failure modes that it doesn't guard against"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

quote:
"A RAID system used as secondary storage is not intended as a replacement for backing up data"

http://www.2brightsparks.com/resources/articles/RAID-is-not-a-backup-solution.html

quote:
"There are some who believe a RAID array provides a backup solution. It does not. "


http://ask-leo.com/is_using_raid_a_good_backup_alternative_and_if_so_ which_raid_should_i_use.html

quote:
"No.

In fact...

No. No. No. No.

and No.

RAID is not backup, and no RAID array should ever be considered a replacement for backup.

I'll review what RAID is, and most importantly what it is not
"


This is not cherry picking, I'm taking the first hits on the first page. So, your point about raid being the perfectly suited system for backup?

SBowie
09-29-2011, 09:53 AM
Be my guest, but if someone states RAID as "perfectly suited for backup", someone needs to step in and correct it. Whether he is a moderator or not.Did I say "perfectly suited for backup" somewhere? (No, I did not).

It's a good measure. It's arguably at least as good in some respects as simply copying data to another isolated location, either manually or automatically later - since if your primary copy dies before you do that, all of your recent changes are toast. Multiple methods are obviously even better, as they can make up to some extent for the inadequacies of any single system. I don't need to quote clever friends to support this, since it's all quite obvious. Nor does this have anything to do with me being a moderator.

Hieron
09-29-2011, 09:57 AM
However the whole notion behind RAID in general is to provide failsafe storage. Several of the other RAID types (1, 1+0, 3 and 5, for instance) provide excellent protection against failure.

I remembered the wording wrong I see. The exact words were different, the meaning the same.

The whole notion in general behind RAID is NOT to provide failsafe storage. They do NOT provide excellent protection against failure (in general). They only do provide protection against drive failure and is never intended as backup solution.

Quoting clever friends is a problem? It's the only people I personally know and hold in high esteem with a verifiable (granted, only for me) educated reason to say things. The internet says the exact same thing though. Apparantly this is not so obvious, so quoting clever friends may be handy? Since the whole notion of Raid is not failsafe storage?

--------moving on---------

The issue of "failure before copying a backup" is a valid one, that's why I run a raid 10 array with a spare drive always at the ready. So, to keep the operating system running, raid is maybe a decent idea (my clever friends disagree in my case and also here argue for better copying habits, read: daily and they fear that my motherboard/controller may die sooner than a disk failure would have irrevocably lost me data...).

I was interested to hear about "realtime" backups though.. we tried a few methods but most were slow to keep our 6TB fileserver up to date and copied. Anyone had luck with that?

SBowie
09-29-2011, 10:20 AM
Quoting clever friends is a problem?No, but finding it necessary to mention in every post is a bit wearisome.


The issue of "failure before copying a backup" is a valid one, that's why I run a raid 10 array with a spare drive always at the ready.A spare drive which just happens to have a current copy (i.e., a backup) of your system - courtesy of the "1" in the RAID 10 definition, yes. A backup copy which allows you to get back up and running quickly. But let's not call it a backup, because that would be wrong.

Anyway, this is a waste of breath. I did not say RAID provides a perfect backup solution, and taken in context the comment I did make contrasted it to the much less reliable RAID 0. I think as one element of a backup scheme, it's just fine. We at least agree that no single scheme is perfect. You seem to want to restrict the word "backup" to a narrow definition; feel free, but don't go the the websites of developers like Drobo or you'll find them quite disturbing. Personally, as I've said, I run multiple backup schemes - offsite by VPN, and local using both NAS and (USB3) RAID 0 (as a less reliable but conveniently fast and accessible local uncompressed backup).

Hieron
09-29-2011, 10:30 AM
No, but finding it necessary to mention in every post is a bit wearisome.

Wow, I managed to annoy you? This day is full of wonders. Do I do it THAT often? I hardly been on the forum for months... :/ But yeah, sometimes I do get the urge to pass on info I get from people actually educated in a topic. Sorry. Won't happen again. Let's just assume the obvious.


A spare drive which just happens to have a current copy (i.e., a backup) of your system - courtesy of the "1" in the RAID 10 definition, yes. A backup copy which allows you to get back up and running quickly. But let's not call it a backup, because that would be wrong.

Yes Steve, that would be wrong. Don't make me post all I did again. It is a partial failsafe for a specific point of failure and should be mentioned as such.


To add something usefull:
http://store.antec.com/Product/accessories-other/easy-sata/0-761345-30750-5.aspx

I really like those, easy slot in and copying.

Elmar Moelzer
10-02-2011, 10:04 PM
Besides backups to several local harddrives, we also make daily backups of important project data to external USB harddrives that are then unplugged and stored at off site locations. Since the data is on an external drive, an infection with a virus (provided it does not go undetected until the next backup) can not affect the backup data.
We also have less frequent backups to two more external harddrives that then go into storage at two separate locations. Unless a nuke explodes above Graz that data should be pretty save (and then I think I would have other worries).

LW_Will
10-03-2011, 03:11 AM
Why not working straight off of it? I only want it for back up, but I'm curious.

Basically, it isn't designed to be used everyday. It is very to extremely slow, and it has some routing issues,what with it being a big drive and possibly eating up most operational cycles with on-going maintenance, which is what you buy it for... all that redundancy.

There is a later DROBO, I think its called the ES, but I might misremember that one, that is MADE to be a SAN-style drive, one drive that many people on the network can be working on. That one has the RAID and the Drobo redundancy and is designed to be used for work.

They covered it on Mac Break Weekly, surprised you missed it. ;-)

LW_Will
10-03-2011, 03:30 AM
I remembered the wording wrong I see. The exact words were different, the meaning the same.

Hard Drives fail. FACT

RAIDs fail. FACT.

USB Keys and USB hard drives fail. FACT.

Your internet will fail, usually at a critical point. FACT.

Your cloud backup service will fail, at a critical moment. FACT.

See, there is no where to go.

So, you have to go everywhere.

The DAM Book by Peter Krogh is really the definitive book on the subject. Its a bit long and specifically about Photography, but the main thrust of the piece is this, "3,2,1".

That is THREE copies (i.e. the one you work on, and two copies. Any less and it just doesn't exist), on TWO different media (ie CD or DVD's BR's, maybe a NAS box) and ONE copy HAS TO BE SOMEWHERE ELSE. Now, whether that is with an online service (like Carbonite or a web service) in your car, sent to a relative every month, or taken to work, you need it to be someplace safe.

You know, I didn't believe in this... until my house almost burned down about 5 years ago. It can happen and it does.

Look, we aren't saying that one system is best. Truth is, any system is going to fail. All you are doing is lengthening that time until it does.

SBowie
10-03-2011, 06:09 AM
Truth is, any system is going to fail. All you are doing is lengthening that time until it does.And using multiple systems of different types makes it very unlikely that failures will be simultaneous.

LW_Will
10-03-2011, 05:14 PM
And using multiple systems of different types makes it very unlikely that failures will be simultaneous.

That too. :agree:

Philbert
10-04-2011, 06:16 PM
They covered it on Mac Break Weekly, surprised you missed it. ;-)

Why would I be watching something about macs? :p

Andy Meyer
10-04-2011, 06:46 PM
not only a disc can fail, a whole nas can fail too!
if your house or studio burns to the ground or gets mugged, an inhouse-only backup is something you will reconsider after such an event ;-)