Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Online, Inexpensive and Secure Data Storage?

Cliff posted more than 9 years ago | from the tired-of-digital-media dept.

The Internet 87

ThePolkapunk asks: "After years of suffering through floppy demagnetizations, hard drive crashes, CDR bit rot and the click of death, I've become fed up with having to take care of my own backups. Does anyone know of a reasonably inexpensive, secure data storage facility accessible online that can store all of my important files with enough redundancy for me to feel safe?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Gmail (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12815576)

Re:Gmail (1)

Goyuix (698012) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815647)

I also use GMail for some light duty backup purposes, and to further help the paranoia I use [] to put smallish (1-5MB) encrypted partitions up there for sensitive data. So far they have scaled with additional storage faster than my demand for storage, so I am quite happy with it so far. Just store the executable for TrueCrypt in your account as well and you are set for life.

Very cool.

Re:Gmail (1)

bedessen (411686) | more than 8 years ago | (#12906595)

For life? Or until gmail notices that you're using their service to store files and disables it. Or until they close, or require you to pay. Or until they decide to make a change that breaks gmailfs. gmail is great and all and it's fine to use for "light duty" as you say but calling it "for life" is a real stretch. Anyone that uses it as the primary or sole means of backup is really asking for it though.

Simple... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12815578)

Compress everything, encrypt it, and share it on emule as "OSX_X86.iso.

For extra redundancy, post an obscure blog about it, and then submit that blog to /.

USB/Firewire drives (2, Informative)

andrews (12425) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815581)

I've recently switched from DLT to external USB drives. They're cheaper, more reliable and easier to restore from than tape.

Re:USB/Firewire drives (4, Informative)

gregmac (629064) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815838)

I've recently switched from DLT to external USB drives. They're cheaper, more reliable and easier to restore from than tape.

I've been doing backups this way for a few months now. It's also easier to backup. Plug in the usb drive, run rsync, unplug and take offsite. I have a script I run in cron (or manually) that tries to mount it first, and only if it suceeds, runs rsync.

I've been meaning to install another drive at my house to backup a couple servers (just haven't gotten around to it yet), but that'll be similar.. rsync over ssl, run in cron every night.

The one thing this doesn't address that tapes usually do is keeping multiple backups. I was doing this for a while - where I had a directory for I think monday, wednesday and friday - but then our storage space increased and I couldn't fit this on my backup drive anymore. It would just be a matter of buying a bigger drive, or getting another couple enclosures and drives, but I haven't done it yet.

I was playing with using rdiff-backup to make differential backups of just our file shares, but due to lack of a usable web interface I haven't bothered (I don't want to spend time selectively restoring backups for people.. if they can't do it themselves I want no part ;) ). I did start working on one, but there are too many things higher on my priority list.

Re:USB/Firewire drives (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816495)

I plug in and mount my USB disk once a day and run this. I could probably use a for to make it shorter, but... meh.
more information []
#SRCDIR requires a trailing /
DSTDIR=/media/usb/acowar d/rsync/

if [ -d daily.7 ]; then
rm -rf daily.7
if [ -d daily.6 ]; then
mv daily.6 daily.7
if [ -d daily.5 ]; then
mv daily.5 daily.6
if [ -d daily.4 ]; then
mv daily.4 daily.5
if [ -d daily.3 ]; then
mv daily.3 daily.4
if [ -d daily.2 ]; then
mv daily.2 daily.3
if [ -d daily.1 ]; then
mv daily.1 daily.2
if [ -d daily.0 ]; then
mv daily.0 daily.1

mkdir daily.0
rsync -a --progress --stats --delete --link-dest=../daily.1 \
$SRCDIR daily.0/
touch daily.0

Re:USB/Firewire drives (2, Informative)

RGRistroph (86936) | more than 9 years ago | (#12817750)

If you are going to keep a week of rsync'd backups, reduce your script to one line by employing the date command and it's formatting option:

rsync -a --progress --stats --delete --link-dest=../Mon $SRCDIR `date +%a`/

Run "date +%a" to see what it does.

Re:USB/Firewire drives (1)

mvdw (613057) | more than 9 years ago | (#12819031)

Great script; thanks for the rsync line. BTW, if you wanted to use a for loop, here's one way:

for i in $(seq 6 -1 1) ; do
if [ -d daily.${i} ] ; then
mv -f daily.${i} daily.$(( $i + 1 ))

Note that you don't really need to delete the daily.7 dir first; the mv -f should take care of that. Also, I think the $(( ... )) operator might only apply to bash, so you may have to change the !/bin/sh to !/bin/bash at the top of the script.

Another suggestion is to use a version control system to stor your home directory. It's a really good way to keep old versions of stuff, and the bonus is that you only need to backup your repository. I'd suggest subversion, it works for me.

Re:USB/Firewire drives (1)

kzanol (23904) | more than 9 years ago | (#12820528)

You're missing out on a really neat trick that can radically reduce the amount of disk space needed for multiple copies of your data:

instead of just using "mkdir daily.0" do a "cp -al daily.1 daily.0" before rsync:

this creates a copy of the previous days backup directory tree, with all files as hardlinks to the previous days data.
Meaning: only space for the directory entries is used, actual file content is just referenced. running rsync over this hardlinked tree will result in just the changed files being copied.
Since rsync works by creating new files and moving them into place instead of overwriting existing target files, changes will only affect the newly copied tree.
In a usual backup scenario, most of the files stay unchanged, so this allows you to GREATLY increase the number of generations you can keep available on disk.

rdiff-backup and dar work better for this (1)

bigsmoke (701591) | more than 9 years ago | (#12839745)

I use rdiff-backup [] for actual incremental backups. rdiff-backup is based on librsync and works amazingly well. There are a few spites such as a lack of checksums and non-numerical user ID's which can be dangerous when restoring a full system, but overall it is very impressive.

If you're solely using (external) HD's for your backups, you'll like DAR (Disk ARchive) [] even better than rsync/rdiff-backup.

Re:USB/Firewire drives (2, Insightful)

altstadt (125250) | more than 9 years ago | (#12818099)

You need rsnapshot [] and a *nix box.

I have up to 12 months worth of backups, including hourly snapshots of the previous 24 hours, always available to all the users online. Tapes do not have to be hunted down and mounted. The users can easily go browse their own snapshots and get the files they need when they have an oops. The snapshots are maintained on a different machine than the source data, so an individual machine can melt into a lump of slag with the loss of no more than one hour of data.

Since it uses rsync and hard links, only the changed files get added to the backup, so you can size your backup hard drive at roughly 50% larger than the source drive and never have to worry about running out of backup space.

If you have a reasonably fast network connection, you could even have the backups located off site with no extra effort beyond the initial setup.

rsnapshot is great (1)

kwerle (39371) | more than 9 years ago | (#12819423)

Check it out! []

Re:USB/Firewire drives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816184)

So what do you use as storage medium there? Hard drives I guess? Ok guy, now take a deep breath and read the story once again.

So, do you notice anything now?

Re:USB/Firewire drives (2, Insightful)

OctaneZ (73357) | more than 9 years ago | (#12817137)

The whole reason people prefer tape for backup over hard drives, is that you seperate the stoarge medium from the recording device. You therefore have an easier time recovering if something fouls one or the other.

Re:USB/Firewire drives (1)

kayen_telva (676872) | more than 9 years ago | (#12818904)

i guess thats because tape drives & tapes foul up so often ?
seriously, anybody using tape for backup is asking for trouble
they suck unless you can afford a huge robotic tape thingamjig where even if half the tapes are bad you still have something
tapes are dying...

Re:USB/Firewire drives (1)

eyeye (653962) | more than 9 years ago | (#12818429)

Hmm you got that post in quick but missed the point.

Heres my suggestion for online inexpensive secure data storage. Encrypt your backups and share them on a p2p service as hot.slutz.divx.avi.

My server (1)

yotto (590067) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815623)

You can throw all your stuff in my server if you'd like. Make sure it's unencrypted, though, I'll take care of all that for you.

Seriously, though, I store all my backups myself, because it's important enough to me to back it up but I'm not a corporation that can pay someone to back it up for me. Assuming you're like me, you only have one option.

Re:My server (2, Informative)

rogabean (741411) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815666)

I tend to actually take this a step forward in my thinking...

If it's important enough for me to feel I need to back it up, it's important enough I would not trust anyone else besides me backing it up.

Couple of external drives works great for me. Important stuff is backed up twice (once to each drive).


Re:My server (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12815816)

Do you use USB or Firewire external drives ? I have had many problems with the reliability of both. It seems to not be the harddrives themselves, but the USB ports or enclosures that quit working.

I set up a system with 2 large USB drives that were switched out every day, and a cron job re-mounted them after they were swapped and before backups were dumped to it. The other drive was kept off site. Eventually (like 3 months or daily swapping) all the USB ports on that motherboard quit working. I switched the backups to another machine and it suffered the same problem, or else the enclosures quit, I'm not sure; I gave up on USB and got a firewire card. After one week of use, with no connecting/disconnecting, none of my firewire drives will mount. These experiments covered several different linux distributions.

My end conclusion is that both firewire and USB are pieces of crap. I am thinking of trying one of the cheap consumer-level NAS's that is now coming on the market.

Re:My server (1)

yuri benjamin (222127) | more than 9 years ago | (#12828900)

You can throw all your stuff in my server if you'd like.

Now there's an idea. A group of friends could mirror each other's data (encrypted if they don't trust each other).

If three friends got together to do this, each would have two offsite backups.

N friends would have N-1 offsite backups.

Backups?? (3, Funny)

rogabean (741411) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815624)

Sage Advice:

"Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;)" - Linus Torvalds

Re:Backups?? (1)

Bandito (134369) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815798)

"Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;)" - Linus

This assumes, of course, that your stuff is important enough to be mirrored. True of the Linux kernel source, probably not of your high school research paper on the merits of underwater basket weaving.

underwater basket weaving (3, Funny)

Hell O'World (88678) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816530)

Oh sure, it's easy to laugh. But one day, people will not laugh. Weavers unite! []

RAID (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815631)

A decent RAID setup is easy and fairly inexpensive these days.

Re:RAID (3, Insightful)

HawkingMattress (588824) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815959)

Not sure if that's what you mean or not, But RAID is *not* a replacement for backup. If you don't pay attention and delete a file, a backup should be able to give you that file back. A RAID setup will ensure that the file gets deleted on all the mirrors...
On the other hand if you use an external RAID server to store backups on yep it's not bad. But i'd say that it would be even better to just have a regular ide disk to make backups on, and a remote location you can upload your backups to... RAID is good, but what happens if you PSU goes crazy and kills all the disk in the array (happened to me :( ) ? Or if the physical location the server is in catches on fire ?
So if you can have a place to upload to and it's doable for the amount of data you need to transfer, it'll probably be much cheaper, and much more secure than a RAID array.

Re:RAID (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816843)

All valid concerns.

But if you're that paranoid (and after losing a whole RAID array in one go, I don't blame you), you're going to be pretty hardcore and nuanced about your backup strategies.

But, for fairly pedestrian usage, not to mention cost and ease of maintenance (Dead HD? just slap in another one), RAID can't be beat.

I'm also running under the assumption that you have a PCs plus RAID storage setup, so if the RAID goes to shit like yours did, there's a set of data still on the PCs, right?

Bottom line, online storage is not a viable option IMO. Not for cost, not for reliability, and certainly not for privacy.

No, No, No (1)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 9 years ago | (#12821735)

RAID is a great way of ensuring that your data is nice and consistent. If you're running RAID and you overwrite a file, delete one by accident etc etc then what you end up with is a perfectly redundant and consistent state: with your file deleted. RAID is for availability, backup is for safety.

WTF (1)

lorcha (464930) | more than 9 years ago | (#12866791)

> rm -f ~/important_file
> # Oh shit, I didn't mean to do that!

Please tell me how RAID would fix this problem. I'm waiting...


Still waiting....

Oh, that's right. RAID doesn't fucking solve the fucking problem. That's what fucking backups are fucking for.

Fuckin' A, you're dense.

Re:WTF (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 9 years ago | (#12871975)

Boy, you people are clumsy with your data...almost all of the complaints I'm getting are of this kind. I don't know about you, but it's been a good few years since I 'accidentally' erased, or lost a file. You people need to be more careful what you rm, rf or carelessly drop.

Backups are so easy (1)

lorcha (464930) | more than 9 years ago | (#12872560)

it's been a good few years since I 'accidentally' erased, or lost a file.
Bet you really wanted it back, too. What if you mess up a DELETE or UPDATE statement in your database? Or bork a configuration file and want to see what it used to look like?

What if your power goes out in the middle of writing a file to disk and the file gets corrupted? What if you lose multiple disks on your RAID at the same time because they were from the same manufacturing run? What if multiple disks are damaged while transporting the computer? What if there is a fire in your home?

Even if you are perfect and never make any human errors, you live in an imperfect world. Prudent computer users keep offsite backups.

I hope none of the things I mentioned ever happen to you. I hope none of the other dozen or so common causes of data loss happen to you. I hope you never rm something accidentally. As for me, I can't remember the last time I accidentally rm'ed something, but I am currently at the office sitting next to my encrypted offsite backup CDs.

RAID + LVM snapshots (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 9 years ago | (#12818725)

Not sure if that's what you mean or not, But RAID is *not* a replacement for backup. If you don't pay attention and delete a file, a backup should be able to give you that file back.

That's why you should also take periodic snapshots of your data.

I use Linux LVM over four-disk RAID-5 for most of my data, and LVM over four-disk RAID-1 for my most important data. I have a cron job that creates daily LVM snapshot volumes and removes any snapshot more than a week old, unless it was taken on a Monday, and any snapshot more than four weeks old.

The advantage of this solution is obvious: You always have good backups, with zero effort. For most systems, the amount of storage it requires is trivial, too, since the snapshot volumes only store deltas and most data is fairly static over a short period of time.

Nothing is ideal, though, and it does have a couple of weaknesses: First, there are catastrophic failure modes that might kill more than one of hard drives at once. For most of my data, I just accept that risk. For the really important stuff, I periodically rsync a backup to my laptop, one to my desktop machine and once in a while I burn a DVD which I give to my Mom (in case my house burns down).

Second, Linux LVM snapshots have a fixed amount of space allocated to them and they don't grow dynamically. So if too many changes occur on the primary volume, the snapshot volumes will run out of room to store changes and will just stop storing the deltas. This means that an "rm -rf" will wipe out all of your data unless your snapshot volume is as big as your active volume. So I'm careful not to do that, and I have a cron job that e-mails me if any of the snapshot volumes get over 50% full.

Finally, having lots of snapshots volumes does slow down writes, because each modification not only has to be written to the source volume, but any changed or deleted data also has to be copied to all of the relevant snapshots. I typically have 10 snapshots extant at any given moment, so that can add a lot of overhead. In practice, the overhead doesn't affect me but it might bother some people.

XSAN - RAID is not a backup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12840053)

Damn right that RAID is not a backup. It might as easily be a mirror image of corrupt data.

Our company has an Apple XSAN with some 5TB of data on it. One day a controller bug (that Apple have since admitted to) led to it duplicating corrupt metadata across all the backup locations for the XSAN. Cue 5TB of completely (and I mean, totally) inaccessible data. Lost forever.

Fortunately we we able to reconstruct from genuine backups. But no-one should make the mistake of thinking of mirrors as a replacement for a proper backup. They are different!

Re:RAID (1)

vbrtrmn (62760) | more than 9 years ago | (#12817312)

I'm not sure how putting bug spray on my hard drive will keep it from crashing.

Re:RAID (2, Funny)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 9 years ago | (#12817623)

Easy, it keeps the bugs away! *rimshot*

As usual.. (4, Insightful)

rylin (688457) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815635)

As usual, someone thinks they can have all three.
Here's a hint: Pick two.

Re:As usual.. (2)

dasunt (249686) | more than 9 years ago | (#12817221)

Er, why not use GnuPG (free) + 2 Cheap Webstorage/hosts.

Its cheap, its secure, and since the data is on two physically different machines at two different locations it should be reliable.

How 'bout Gmail? (3, Interesting)

xmas2003 (739875) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815652)

GmailFS - The Google File System [] as discussed on Slashdot ...

Re:How 'bout Gmail? (1)

djdead (135363) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816525)

10 mb limit on any given file...

Re:How 'bout Gmail? (1)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 9 years ago | (#12817031)

Really, they should allow you to register your 5 google accounts, drag a 10gb file on the folder, and then split/span the file into all those accounts, which can be done through one root account, (if sent mail doesnt add to storage...) anyway, keep sent mail can be turned off.

Then, when you login, it pops the 5 accounts one at a time, collates the file system, then caches.

Since you only have to update when you make a change, it wont be slow.

Google has some neato throttling on file dl's, but if you copy the 10gb file to your HDD, it just gets segment by segment.

Viola. Then you can write a torrent function, and automatically seed google accounts as torrent sources.

Then you could store all yoru data on gmail, because we know the end of the world is coming, because every two-bit news 'source' is trying to get on slashdot with stories about the apple intel merger.

Piece. (sic)

Re:How 'bout Gmail? (1)

parvenu74 (310712) | more than 9 years ago | (#12817069)

Uh... partition files in 10MB chunks with your favorite zip/rar/compression scheme?

You missed this one: stability (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815655)

At least as important as the others is stability. You don't want a site that winks out for a few hours because four guys decided to upload 20 meg .mov files at the same time. You also don't want a fly-by-night dot-bomb that is fast, meets legitimate security requirements, and is free.....but it inexplicably vanishes 13 days after you discover and start using it.

Inexpensive Online Storage (1)

klahnako (209184) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815660)

I would like to know too. I have 80gigs to backup. I currently use a friends machine, but it would be nice to pay about $20/month and not have to maintain it mayself.

Re:Inexpensive Online Storage (2, Interesting)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815852)

> I have 80gigs to backup. I currently use a friends machine, but it would be nice to pay about $20/month and not have to maintain it mayself.

Get another 80 Gig hard drive. They go for about $0.40/Gig with rebates (see Put it inside your machine or in an external USB enclosure.

Get Norton Ghost, or if you don't want to pay for Norton Ghost, make a Knoppix CD for free and use 'ntfsclone'.

Make exact images of your hard drive once a week. It may not be "online" but it couldn't get much easier.

Drive: approx. $32
External USB enclosure: approx. $30
Knoppix: free
Total: $62.
Time to make a ghost/ntfsclone backup: 30 seconds to click GO, then go do something else for an hour.

So for about $5/month you have a simple easy to do backup system.

Re:Inexpensive Online Storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12817489)

Get another 80 Gig hard drive. They go for about $0.40/Gig with rebates (see
80 Gigs for ~$30 []

200GB for ~$75. []

Important issue, many seem to forget. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12817568)

Many people seem to forget the single biggest issue with online backups. That is, performance. People seem to forget that it will take nearly ten days to upload 80GB even on a 1Mbps broadband connection.

What happens when your hard drive fails and you need to restore? Can you really wait for ten days or more while the restore is downloaded? In my opinion, if you can't do a full restore in four hours or less, then you need a faster backup/restore solution.

Online backups aren't really very useful unless you have a 100Mbps or 1Gbps connection between you and the backup server. Unfortunately for them, most people don't realize or accept this little detail until they have a catastrophic failure and then it is too late.

Easy (3, Interesting)

g1zmo (315166) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815765)
ad infinitum...

Backups (3, Informative)

mknewman (557587) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815783)

You can try these guys: [] Marc

Re:Backups (1)

simon13 (121780) | more than 9 years ago | (#12820332)

Looks OK, but the problem with some of these online backup systems is that they use a web interface, and don't seem to offer FTP. Looks like cheap web-hosting accounts (with FTP) are a better option.

Simon. (4, Informative)

gothzilla (676407) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815787)

Check out []
Very reasonably priced and they maintain offsite backups of their backups.
One thing to keep in mind is transfer speed. I would have used them but I have 40gigs of data to back up and it would take too long to send daily. (1)

mc_barron (546164) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815982)

If you can use rsync then only the changes are transferred (so after the first big dump additional backups are small). I use a combination of Unison and rsync to maintain files between my laptop and desktop and between my desktop and backup. (1)

Asgard (60200) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816719)

Their site says their special software does what amounts to an rsync, however the parent poster was probably referring to the initial transfer of all the existing files.

Consider Magneto-Optical (2, Interesting)

VernonNemitz (581327) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815840)

This technology is based on a scientific method used to detect the orientation of the Earth's magnetic field from millions of years ago. That qualifies as great data retention in my book! The drives (3.5in) run $200-$300 depending on source and capacity (current max is 2.3Gb per approx-$20 removable disk). 5.25in drives are also avaialable in capacities up to 9Gb or so, but also are much more expensive.

Re:Consider Magneto-Optical (1)

skinfitz (564041) | more than 9 years ago | (#12817833)

2.3Gb per $20 disk on a $200-300 drive?

Have you seen how cheap hard drives are these days?? For that much money you could buy several 40Gb drives and mirror them all.

Re:Consider Magneto-Optical (1)

VernonNemitz (581327) | more than 9 years ago | (#12820185)

The relevant question is, "How much data are you going to put on those many-gig hard drives? The average person will be able to to manage with a not-too-expensive total number of MO disks. Hard drives are for storing Operating Systems and Applications, not data. Because no hard drive has the guaranteed-40-years storage lifetime of MO. And so far, every new generation of MO drive has been backward compatible with ALL the previous generations of MO disks. If your MO drive dies, you get another and all your data is OK. If your hard disk dies and your data is on MO, you get a new hard disk and reinstall your OS and apps, and again things are OK.

One solution (1)

_iris (92554) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815853)

I wouldn't call it cheap, but I doubt you will find much cheaper than 10 gb for $5/mo [] .

It's an open source project! (1)

pyrrhonist (701154) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816156)

I just put all my files on my web server with an index.html that says it's an open source project.

That way somebody will mirror it and others will provide torrents.

Information wants to be free!

Use the internet itself... (1)

kinaole (261317) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816179)

Juggling With Packets []

(This was posted on slashdot previously: Slashdot 03/10/06/1049250 [] )

Perhaps gmail is a bit more reliable though


External hard drives, Yahoo Briefcase (1)

raider_red (156642) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816180)

Yahoo offers online file storage with a set ammount for free, and a fee-based structure for buying more space. Upload is through the web, and it also allows you to set up public folders for files you need to distribute.

Barring that, you can use an external hard-drive. I use a firewire storage enclosure with a 250 GB drive to back up my notebook, and to provide extra storage for video editing.

tit-for-tat peer-to-peer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816305)

What you need is a peer-to-peer type system that allows you to upload your encrypted backups, but only if you offer a certain amount of storage back to the system. And a lot of upload (as opposed to download) bandwidth.

multi-terabyte backups (1)

littlerubberfeet (453565) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816433)

My boss uses a system I don't entirely approve of, but it works regardless. I work at a sound studio, and he does the following: Current projects are on his main computer's drives, backed up to a 1 TB LaCie nightly. Once a week, he brings in a firewire drive from home and backs up recently finished projects. In essance, he dumps projects onto drives as they are finished.

When the terabyte drive gets full, he stores it in a fire-safe cabinet in the studio, so he is able to access it within a few minutes (plug and mount). When his 'home drive' gets full, he puts it in a firesafe cabinet at home and buys another one. When projects run 4-9 gigbytes, this system has a large cost advantage over remote servers. The issue is that he does not back up his operating system, libraries, plugins or virtual instruments. It costs him a few hundred every time he has to pay me to reinstall everything. Also, the system isn't the most orderly to use. The advantage is that he has 3 TB, or over 400 projects easily accessable.

Re:multi-terabyte backups (1)

extra88 (1003) | more than 9 years ago | (#12818176)

Yeah, against my recommendation we have a 1TB LaCie "Bigger Disk" as well as 2 320GB LaCie "Big Disks" which also happen to be used for audio files. All of these devices use multiple drives and RAID0. RAID0 is not RAID, there is no redundnacy and your data is actually at *greater* risk because you lose your data if any single drive fails.

The Bigger disk and one of the Big Disks both failed in the same month. Fortunately, the Bigger Disk files also existed elsewhere but replacing the contents of the Big Disk would have required re-digitizing hundreds of hours of recordings. They opted to send it to Drive Savers instead who restored it all, about ~240GB, for around $4000 (that price included some significant discounts). Consider that when pricing real RAID hardware or tape drives (LTO-3 tapes hold 400GB uncompressed, don't use compression).

The "take it home" method of off-site storage is not bad, even when the media are hard drives rather than optical or tape media, but get him off the RAID0 crap!

See all the current losses in backups (2, Insightful)

MerlynEmrys67 (583469) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816441)

Here are companies paying big BIG bucks for these three (well, probably not online - they'll ship tapes) and you still have tapes lost/stolen off of the UPS truck.

My advice - make sure you SECURE your data before it leaves the house... ie. run AES over the whole thing. Depending on your parania level - either keep the key locally, or with a DIFFERENT backup provider so that there would have to be a collusion between the two vendors to get your data.

Another solution would be to encrypt the AES key for each backup with your public key - then all you have to do is keep the private key private. Is it small enough to keep on a pair (or more) USB dongles - or again, back it up with a second vendor.

End result - most backup vendors provide physical security, so it is up to you to provide true security for when their physical systems are broken into.

P2P would be nice (1)

photon317 (208409) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816447)

The really ideal solution would be a p2p backup network. Each client has their own encryption keys, and agrees that for every X kbytes of local data they need backed up, they're willing to store 3X worth of data from others. Your data is encrypted with your key before being sent out to the p2p network, which is designed to keep a minimum of 3 remote copies of your data out there - if less than 3 copies are detected for any decent amount of time, it just makes more copies on other machines. When you need your data, all you need is your key (it's on a USB drive and/or floppy, or whatever) to decrypt the copies you pull from the p2p backup service.

Re:P2P would be nice (1)

computersareevil (244846) | more than 9 years ago | (#12817772)

This has already been done and suggested above. DIBS [] Distributed Internet Backup System.

Removable media (1)

Asgard (60200) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816634)

Here's my regime:

Materials: 1 Linux server, 1 winxp desktop, 2 removable HD cartridges.

The desktop has a removable hard drive cradle [] .

  1. Every week I plug in one of the HD's to the XP machine and mount it onto the linux box via samba.
  2. I tar my entire linux box, piped through GNU Privacy Guard [] (to protect against unauthorized access) and 'split' (to avoid the 2GB file limit) and store it on the HD in date-stamped directory.
  3. I store the removable HD offsite.
The backup drive is much larger then the combined total of my server, so each backup drive can store at least 2 entire backups. Additionally, I never have both backups at home at the same time in case of disaster.

My windows box stores all of its critical files (ie My Documents) on a samba share on the server.

I also do a daily rsync of the most critical / volatile files offsite nightly.

Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816723)

Get a hard drive. Preferably of another manufacturer, and copy contents to it. Unplug, and store. What is difficult to understand about this????

Re:Duh (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816986)

Probably the part where you can access it online...

Re:Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12818832)

It's a ridiculous requirement anyways. How the hell are you gonna access all those GBs online anyhow?

iomega REV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12817184)

At my company, we've been using Iomega REV drives in more and more applications. The drives run about $400. The removeable disks run about $40 and they store 35GB. The drives come in USB2 and firewire. They also ship with some iomega backup software. It's no replacement for BackupExec, but for individuals using PCs, it's no half bad. The software does some pretty impressive compression on the data if you want it to, giving you upwards of 70-90 GB per 35GB disk.

USB Drives (1)

sydbarrett74 (74307) | more than 9 years ago | (#12817872)

My vote is with USB drives. They're inexpensive enough that you can ghost a drive image onto a couple and, say, store one in a safety deposit box and another with a trusted friend/relative in another state.

Multiple CDs in various locations. (1)

alexjohns (53323) | more than 9 years ago | (#12817916)

Jerry Pournelle's been doing this for years. Get a fire-proof safe. Get a Post Office Box. Make CDs of all your important data as often as you feel necessary. Daily. Weekly. Bi-weekly. Whatever. Make like 5 at any given time. Put one in your safe. One in your PO Box. Keep one at your office. Keep some in a trusted friend's garage. Bury some in a chest in your backyard. Keep some at your mom's place. Or your kid's place.

The odds of all the CDs going bad or all the places blowing up at the same time are pretty small.

If you've got more data than CDs can reasonably hold, switch to DVDs. If it's more than that, use tape.

Encrypt your data first... (1)

OneDeeTenTee (780300) | more than 9 years ago | (#12818193)

...then upload it to an FTP server and let everyone else mirror it.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. (2, Informative)

Stephen H-B (771203) | more than 9 years ago | (#12819200)

Secure. Online. Inexpensive.

Pick two.

Misquoted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12819801)

I believe that's supposed to be:

Fast. Cheap. Reliable.

Marginally On-Topic Observations Regarding Backups (2, Informative)

PurpleFloyd (149812) | more than 9 years ago | (#12819534)

A good thing to remember about backups (and one that no one in this thread has yet brought up) is that most of your data isn't that important. Sure, you've got a 200 gigabyte hard drive that's full to bursting, but how much of that is MP3s and how much is your really important, totally irreplacable data? You know, your finances, your emails, even your vacation pictures?

A quick check of my own hard drive gives me about a gig for my /home directory on the Linux side and about 3.5 gigs for the My Documents and Application Data directories on the Windows side; meanwhile, my Media directory has about 110 gigs in it - all ripped from other media, and thus replacable. Even the 4.5 gig figure could probably be pared down considerably, if I wanted to put the effort into it - especially in Windows, applications tend to leave temporary files everywhere. Although I wouldn't be surprised to hear that many people here have far more data than I, I would also be very surprised to hear many non-business users say that the majority of the information on their hard drives is totally irreplacable - that is, there are more than a few non-professionals who have more space devoted to their own work than they do programs, ripped media, and the like.

Why is this important? It makes it a lot easier to back up your data if you can isolate the important bits. Instead of a fairly expensive solution involving removable hard drives, it's probably possible to fit everything on a much cheaper archival-grade DVD or two - or store everything on a remote backup server for a lot less money. In fact, with only a few gigs of mostly static data to consider, an FTP or SSH-based reciprocal backup arrangement with a friend could work well.

The point here is that, while backing up every single bit on your hard disk is an excellent idea, and will certainly get you back up and running quickly, it can be much more feasable to simply back up the small subset of truly irreplacable data. While it's not as good as a full system backup, it's certainly better than the full system backup you never implemented or used because it was such a hassle. While this kind of system might be unacceptably lax in the buisiness world, it is certainly better than what many home users, including many Slashdotters, are using right now.

Re:Marginally On-Topic Observations Regarding Back (1)

travail_jgd (80602) | more than 9 years ago | (#12822107)

You raise a lot of good points, but I'd like to mention that backing up media files offsite isn't a bad idea.

Homeowners and renters insurance may limit how much they'll pay to replace lost media. Even then, you have to contend with finding the media: CDs go out of print, Disney stops selling certain movies for a time... even the companies themselves go out of business. (I've got CDs from labels that don't exist anymore, and were never re-released.)

It's all a matter of priorities. :)

Re:Marginally On-Topic Observations Regarding Back (1)

lilmouse (310335) | more than 9 years ago | (#12822810)

Yeah. The time required to find a good way to back up media files (even if only once in a while) is far, far less then the time required to re-rip a music collection...


Semi OT: DVD-RAM? (1)

WoTG (610710) | more than 9 years ago | (#12821110)

When I bought my first DVD burner, I specifically chose one that was DVD-RAM capable. Little did I know that the media are 5-10x the cost of DVD-RW. So, what is the verdict on DVD-RAM, are they really engineered to last decades and 10's of thousands of rewrites? If so, how do they do it?

Re:Semi OT: DVD-RAM? (1)

BigCorona (878396) | more than 9 years ago | (#12821519)

way OT, this is a new askslash topic

Re:Semi OT: DVD-RAM? (1)

sbryant (93075) | more than 9 years ago | (#12822316)

Take one of your DVD-RAM disks, and look at the underside. Notice the pretty pattern? It's not just there to make them look good! That's hard sectoring; you never ever need to low-level format a DVD-RAM disk.

The DVD-RAM disks do actually last a lot longer than the normal RW disks. I don't know how much longer though, as none of mine have ever died (unlike the RWs). While it may not be so widespread in the western world, I have heard that DVD-RAM is far more common in the Far East.

I also heard somewhere that DVD-RAM is the only type of DVD which can be read and written at the same time (presumably because it is hard sectored). Don't know if it's really true though.

Getting back on topic... my backup recommendation is to backup to separate hard disks on site, and also keep copies on DVD-RAM offsite.

-- Steve

Connected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12824279) []

Windows only, but the price isn't horrible.

Disclaimer: I work for Iron Mountain. rm.aspx []

LiveVault will run on Solaris for Sparc 7,8,9, and several version of RH for x86. I have no idea how much it costs; I don't work for that part of the company.

DISCLAIMER: I work for Iron Mountain.

Inexpensive (FREE) online storage (1)

mc76 (850667) | more than 9 years ago | (#12827076)

Streamload [] offers a free online storage, retrieval and storage service. It takes only a few seconds to sign up for an account and you don't have to pay to store your stuff (they give you unlimited storage with no additional charges), you only pay a nominal charge for the amount of stuff you download back to yourself above 100 MB. Even the subscription plans are cheap (starting at $5 a month). I've used the service for about a year now and it works very well though using just my browser. I would recommend downloading their upload and download manager if you have a windows machine. It makes backing your stuff up much faster.

You could try Backup-Connect: (1)

El Jynx (548908) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840672) []

They offer online backup services in many parts of europe for reasonable prices, and you can go 30 days back (up to 180, if you pay more.) My company uses it (6 people) and we sleep quite soundly : )

- Jynx

Online remote data storage (1)

gary09202000 (893021) | more than 9 years ago | (#12848481)

Selling online remote data storage internally is the toughest proposition.This is the quintessential problem,right? Even if you do find a good remote backup service provider,(this remote backup whitepaper [] is a good starting point to find remote backup services providers)you are going to find it difficult to convince your bosses who are always paranoid about possible security violations
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?