What's the best way for an individual to back up multiple TBs of data?
Blue rays? HDDs? Tape Drives?
>>53309808
Bump for interest
>>53309808
All of them
MDISC
D
I
S
C
Buy those cheap HDD and store it somewhere.
>>53309935
ask me how I know you've never done this
For a few TBs, hard drives. They cost effective and you can put them in RAID if you want
For tens of TBs then tapes because financially viable.
>>53309893
Fuck that, the largest disc size is 100GB, They're twice as expensive as HDDs per gb, they're write once, and require a $100+ burner.
>>53309808
this right here
>>53309957
>put them in RAID if you want
that doesn't have anything to do with backup
>largest disc size is 100GB
what do you need to backup?
>>53309808
An individual doesn't have multiple TBs of data worthy of backup, so the question is stupid. With that said, whatever you want, it doesn't matter.
>>53310055
That's a pretty good point. Backup the things that are important to you. 3TB of animu pictures are easily replaceable.
Just get some hdds.
A 4 TB hdd isn't that much.
>>53310082
>3TB of animu pictures
>easily replaceable
I get what youre saying but 3tb of any pictures aren't replaceable
>>53309957
>require a $100+ burner.
u wat m8?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136250&ignorebbr=1
$53~
backing up of important only stuff it's viable, but having to wait for it to fill a 25GB, 50GB, or 100GB disk is where it loses me, i'd rather get a decent hard drive and burn it in and make sure it fucking die on me and just keep it as offline/remote backup of an online backup
get one of those desk hotswap hdd docks and dump all your data onto it or keep 2-3 hotswaps on the front of your server few for offloading data through its native interface
eventually i might pick up a used tape drive and some new tapes and backup like that, which is a lot cheaper than buying a new tape drive
>>53309808
Every time I buy an HDD I buy a matching external of the same size.
Every weekend I plug the externals in and sync the data to them for each drive. Then I unplug them and put them away until next weekend
I use winrar/7z to store files and split into DVD sized volumes. I then burn everything to DVD+R. If it's important data (work related stuff) I use dvdisaster to add a 1/3 redundancy data to each DVD+R. Hard disk is probably more convenient though but I said fuck it after having two 2TB drivers fail on me.
Print it and store it in a humid place.
>>53311036
Not to mention BD-Rs are cheaper per GB. Maybe just a little more of a hassle.
Stone tablets.
how slow are tape drives anyways? if one can get a decent reader for free, are they viable for storing music, images, and chatlogs? how do they mount - as a drive? do they work on os x?
>>53311876
think continental shift slow.
Tape is where you put things you never expect to go back to unless you have a complete failure
>>53311876
If you can get a decent reader for free, you should be using it. The reader is way more expensive than the tapes themselves.
>>53311876
>do they work for homosexuals?
anon...
>>53309808
What kind of internet connection do you have?
If you have access to a big pipe (i.e. through a university) then I would use a cloud backup solution
>>53311876
tapes are for long term archiving of complete disk images for complete restoring later
yea they are slow as fuck but finding a specific thing you need is like having 2 massive horse cocks up your ass, the seek times are fucking unbearable which is why it's pretty much only used to backup full disk images and only used to restore complete images later, and avoided for retrieving of single items from the disk image
>>53311959
ah it seems like they're not for me then. what other options are similar in reliability to tape drives?
>>53311876
I have a SAS attached LTO4 drive. LTO4 is not the current gen (I got it off eBay).
I get about 90MB/sec. That's about 300G / hr. LTO4 is 800G/1.6T capacity.
They typically don't mount. They aren't random access media - they are linear. As the tape runs forward - you are either writing bits or reading them. You either seek forward to what you are looking for or rewind.
I run mine from Linux - but I guess OSX could work. The trick would be getting one to physically interface with a Mac (i.e. SCSI ? SAS ?).
>>53311980
icloud
c
l
o
u
d
>>53312015
i actually do use icloud for a few things, but i'm looking for local storage as opposed to something over the internet
>>53309808
What's in the fucking box, /g/?
>>53312075
oops meant to start a new thread, plz ignore
>>53312088
I bet you have no idea.
>>53312102
don't make me wait, fuccboi!
>>53312102
>>53312075
see
>>53312088
sorry, plz ignore
>>53312102
What is it!?!
>>53312102
I wonder what is the future generation gonna do with 9x800GBs of my naked pictures.
Also an used LTO 3 HP 920 SAS drive.
This weekend I'm gonna bury it near my house, about 3 meters below the ground.
>ayy
Dropbox
>>53311980
what are your goal for this backup?
i tend to think for most people a simple setup of a working stress tested drive for essentials(digitized taxes, family photos, other digitized important documents) in an external enclosure(with one or multiple hdd bays, just avoid the ones that do raid) with a copy and a dvd/bd-re backup done once every 3 months is way more than enough, maybe cloud based backup as a nice safety net
now if you are backing up lots media (photos, movies/video) or you are looking for a more small business solution and that gets pricey fast
>>53309808
Buy 3 hard drives and a fire-proof safe.
Keep the 3 drives synchronized, but always only take two out at a time. (Rotate through them)
That way you have at least one hard drive in the safe at any given time.
>>53310033
>that doesn't have anything to do with backup
Yes it does
>>53312170
why, just why???
>>53312186
>4TB
>physical access (preferably USB or thunderbolt)
>network access (samba)
>low risk of failure
I've heard RAID is not a good solution for redundant backups which is why I shied away from a traditional NAS setup
>>53312219
raid5 is for fault tolerance of a single disk in an array yes you can use it as a backup, but it in and of itself is not a backup, because if a drive fails you have to rebuild the array, what usually happens when you rebuild the array in raid 5 with more than 4-7 disks? another drive fails and you just lost your data
>>53312324
>RAID5
Who even mentioned RAID5, apart from you just pulling it out of your arse?
>but it in and of itself is not a backup
We're talking about storing your backups in a RAID
As opposed to, you know, storing your backups on a single failure point.
Now go take your clueless cargo cult bullshit and fuck off out of this thread.
>>53312275
maybe look into building a nas that you put online to backup, and take offline when you don't need to backup, or build a nas with at least 4(so it can support raid6 or raid z2) hotswap bays and 4(same reason as before) internal and back up the nas once a week, and keep those drives in a firesafe
>>53312324
RAID IS NOT A FUCKING BACKUP
>>53312378
oh so raid6 than? because drive cloning is much better than raid1, why because you can just plug that drive in and not have to rebuild the array(still more likely to fail when rebuilding)
so raid 6, still isn't a backup it's for fault tolerance, backing up to an array is worth while if you need it online, if not drive cloning still beats it
>>53311876
I've been testing an LTO 6 drive at work recently, have managed to write files to it upwards of 200MB/s. As for mounting tape drives, look into LTFS. Only LTO 5 any upwards support that though, and the drives still cost a pretty penny... LTFS works on OSX as far as i know
>>53312170
Why are you keeping the cleaning tape with the media?...
>>53312532
THIS.
THIS ALL DAY LONG.
>>53312378
>storing your backups in a RAID
cargo cult
>>53312643
>cargo calt
And what literally every single professional paid backup company does
>>53312686
literally bwahahahaha
Blu-rays
>>53312686
Problem?
>>53312725
Just leave now, before everyone starts laughing
>>53312532
No it isn't. But it certainly is a reasonable place to store your backups.
>>53312749
>before the backup=raid retards start laughing
wew laddie
>>53312686
yes, and they use array nesting something most faggots on here don't want to do because that shit is expensive and half the drives hold the same data on the first half, but if you get robbed or your house burns down and that array was your only backup, you're fucked
>>53312758
>reasonable place
like any other, ie. irrelevant to the discussion about backups
But exactly 18 HDDs (even number because Satan can't track even numbers) and have them in a loop of copying and pasting constantly while surrounded by a circulation of mineral water
Trust me, I'm a doctor
>>53312712
e.g. Backblaze uses an in-house implementation of RAID6 with 17/3 parity (but they do it on the file level, not the disk level)
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/vault-cloud-storage-architecture/
>>53312867
>I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about
ok, bud
>>53312772
>but if you get robbed or your house burns down
This is where the “fire-proof safe” part of >>53312204 comes into play.
>>53312879
>backblaze.com doesn't know what the fuck they're doing
and I'm sure you know better, right?
>>53312880
in a raid array?
what the fuck are you smoking, keeping cloned drives sure, but i wouldn't want to deal with rebuilding an array with my backup drives, they wouldn't be a backup anymore
>>53312961
>in a raid array?
>redundant array of inexpensive disks array
didn't bother reading the rest, this already triggered me into replying
>>53312930
>pretending to be backblaze.com
anon...
>>53313000
>linking to an article = pretending you're the author
this is how you sound
>>53309808
>>53309808
Use 2 file servers, 1 local and 1 remote location.
> HDDs in raid5 equivalent or better in both locations
> SSD cache for local server, don't bother for remote
> do initial seed of remote server locally before moving it to its long-term location
> automated syncing of remote FS at least once daily
> if you can't completely trust the security of the remote system, use encrypted (and incremental) serialized snapshots with a FS that supports it, like ZFS. (doesn't recover remote space from deleted blocks but secure for even entirely untrusted remote systems)
This is a reasonable approach for anything under ~100TB of backup, but if you're generating more than like 10GB of data per day you'll have to adapt alternate means of keeping the remote synced.
>>53312617
because there was enough space to do that
>>53310024
>3.0TB
>buying odd numbers, ever
>>53313094
I understand that, but...wat
>>53313668
This box contains tapes and the tape drive itself.
If there is unused space and I got no RW tapes left why not pack it inside?
>>53313071
>1 remote location
not having a fireproof room to house your backup in
>>53314135
>not having a fireproof house to backup your room in
>>53314242
if i ever when the lottery that's what i'm doing, and putting a 1/2" steel plates encasing the whole house
>>53311876
for writing out terabyte-sized blobs of data they're faster than an 8TB SMR hdd
but i swear to god getting a single file off a tape is like asking a teenager to clean his room
>>53313403
>>>53310024
he didn't get the 20 pack on sale
>>53314135
thermally sealing a room or a safe or whatever if fine for offline backups, but it tends to be difficult with running servers inside.
> make super insulated room
> put servers inside
> dedicate central AC loop to insulated room
> evoporator coil fan catches room on fire
> rest of the house is still fine
> couldhavebeenworse.jpg
>>53310033
retard that has everything to do with backup. Redundancy is the direct and required attribute to the backup.
LTO4 or higher tape, or glacier storage.
/thread
>>53311804
You need Verbatim or TY discs for maximum recording reliability and future playability.
>>53310024
>meme color drives for prosumertards
Fuckoff
>>53312170
that's if they find an LTO3 or LTO4 drive to read it when they dig that shit up
>tfw got 5 new LTO4 tapes for 5USD ea on shitbay
I think the listing was a mistake. I haven't seem them sell for anywhere close to that since.
>>53309808
Tape drives last the longest, but is also the most expensive option.
Keeping mirrored backups is usually the most economical and logical way for consumers. Blu rays rot plus are fairly fragile media.
>>53309808
I usually use an even / odd rotation and a pair of USB hard drives.
Setup both drives as backup sources, run a full backup.
Even drive goes off-site, odd drive runs next scheduled backup. Swap at time interval, I do weekly.
That way one backup is off-site at all times.
Long term storage goes on an encrypted LTO-2, in a safe deposit box.
>>53309808
Encrypt it and upload it to cloud.
Not even kidding.
>>53311876
random-access time is extremely slow (remember trying to find a specific scene on a VHS tape?, it's like that)
i'd only use them like that for things i don't mind waiting a couple minutes to seek to, like movies
>>53309808
Tapes, LTO6 or higher.
>>53322827
>Dat two year upload time
>>53309808
Personally Tape.
Bluray is not a bad ideia but you can store tape much easier.
>>53322827
>uploading multiple T's of data at ~100K/s
i generate data faster than i could upload it
>>53310055
>An individual doesn't have multiple TBs of data worthy of backup
lol get a load of this normie he doesn't have tbs of music,movies,ebooks,porn
>>53323219
>worthy
>porn
found the 12 year old
>>53324049
>Not having obscure hd fetish porn collection
ayy speak for yourself kid
