I’m trying to plan a better backup solution for my home server. Right now I’m using Duplicati to back up my 3 external drives, but the backup is staying on-site and on the same kind of media as the original. So, what does your backup setup and workflow look like? Discs at a friend’s house? Cloud backup at a commercial provider? Magnetic tape in an underground bunker?
You must log in or register to comment.
“3! 2! 1!” Is just what I say when doing some potentially deleterious action after rsyncing a few key directories to a separate volume
I dump my encrypted data to someone who probably practices 3-2-1 rule (which is Backblaze for me). I mean, these guys back up data for a living.
3 sticky notes telling me to “go get that incremental backup working”,
2 separate external hard drives,
1 month out of dateSame lol. Can’t be that catastrophic. Right? …. Right?
borgmatic is way too easy and hetzner storage box is way too cheap to have any excuses
I use Proxmox Backup Server for my backups. Everything backups to 1 system at home. I then sync the data store to a little NAS I have at a family members house across town and also to a cheap storage VPS on the other side of the country. I also do a manual sync of the data store to a single external drive that I manually connect and disconnect.
None of my data hoarding files are backed up as that would cost way too much. That could change if I ever find a killer deal on an LTO8 or better drive and tapes.
I know that Hetzner has some decently priced Storage Boxes that you can mount using rclone and then backup to. Keep in mind that latency will be a factor so it could be slow.
All my systems are backed up with “rsnapshot” to a file server. File server is backed up to backblaze with duplicacy.
Everything backs up to a Synology diskstation (with disk redundancy). The Syno’s Hyperbackup makes backups of critical stuff stuff to the cloud weekly. In the case of my self-hosted stuff, it’s mostly the share storage where all my docker volumes map to. Also workstation backsups, home assistant backups, phone photos, etc.
A back up of the temporally replaceable stuff (everything not covered above) which is hosted from the Diskstation, is made to an external drive a few times a year and stored off-site the rest of the time. This isn’t 3-2-1, but its close enough for my needs.
iDrive e2 with duplicati and manually to an external SSD with rscyn every so often.
I was planing on asking a friend to setup a server at their home, but I feel somewhat comfortable with the current solution.
I rawdog storage. I RAID0 and forget. huehue.
Toss in another drive for RAID5. That way you can at least have some redundancy…
It’s not important data. Why would I spend another $200+ for another 20TB drive to have redundancy for 1 and 0 I don’t care about…
Fair point.
I use Kopia to B2, then on a monthly basis I copy the current Kopia repo to an external drive that’s otherwise kept offline in my house.
Sometimes: a laughing hyena.
If you don’t have tested backups, you don’t have a backup.
3: RAID-1 pair + manual periodic sync to an external HD, roughly monthly. Databases synced to cloud.
2: external HD is unplugged when not syncing
1: External HD is a rotating pair, swapped in a bank box, roughly quarterly. Bank box costs $45/year.
If the RAID crashes, I lose at most a month. If the house burns down, I lose at most 3 months. Ransomware, unless it’s really stealthy, I lose 3 months. If I had ongoing development projects, a month (or 3) would be a lot to lose, and I’d probably switch to weekly syncs and monthly swaps, but for what I actually do - media files, financial and smart-home data, 3 months would not be impossible to recreate.
All of this works because my system is small enough to fit on one HDD. A 3-2-1 system for tens of TB starts to look a lot like an enterprise system.
My main server is backed up via Kopia to a 5 TB Hetzner Storage Box and to a second server at my parents in law‘s place. I‘ve got additional MDisc backups of old photos, Paperless PDFs and work related files that don‘t change at my mother‘s place as well.
My Linux ISO collection is too big to actually back up. So, I regularly create file lists and in the event of data loss, I will have to spend quite some time to rebuild it. At least, my fiber connection will help me with that.
I’ve a nightly cronjob that runs backup using rsync for my local, and an external HDD that I stash in my work locker that I bring home once a week or so to connect to the server, run a backup script (more rsync), then take it back to work. It’s not super sophisticated, but it works, and I have tested and restored from both the local and offsite backups.
my backup is staring longingly at LTO drives and wishing they would magically be affordable.
- Primary ZFS pool with automatic snapshots
- Provides 3+ copies of the files via snapshots (3)
- Secondary ZFS pool at a different location replicates the primary
- Provides more copies of the files (3)
- Provides second media (2)
- Is off-site (1)
Does this make sense?
I don’t think this meets the definition of 3-2-1. Which isn’t a problem if it meets your requirements. Hell, I do something similar for my stuff. I have my primary NAS backed up to a secondary NAS. Both have BTRFS snapshots enabled, but the secondary has a longer retention period for snapshots. (One month vs one week). Then I have my secondary NAS mirrored to a NAS at my friends house for an offsite backup.
This is more of a 4-1-1 format.
But 3-2-1 is supposed to be:
-
Three total copies of the data. Snapshots don’t count here, but the live data does.
-
On two different types of media. I.e. one backup on HDD and another on optical media or tape.
-
With at least one backup stored off site.
I’ve always understood 2 as 2 physically different media - i.e., copies in different folders or partitions of the same disk is not enough to protect against failure of that disk, but a copy on a different disk does. Ideally 2 physically different systems, so failure/fire in the primary system won’t corrupt/damage the backup.
Used to be that HDDs were expensive and using them as backup media would have been economically crazy, so most systems evolved backup media to be slower and cheaper. The main thing is that having /home/user/critical, /home/user/critical-backup, and /home/user/critical-backup2 satisfies 3 copies, but not 2 media.
Hm I wonder why snapshots wouldn’t satisfy 3. Copies on the same disk like /file, /backup1/file, /backup2/file should satisfy 3. Why wouldn’t snapshots be equivalent if 3 doesn’t guard against filesystem or hardware failure? Just thinking and curious to see opinion.
If I’m reading your example right, I don’t think that would satisfy three either. Three copies of the data on the same filesystem or even the same system doesn’t satisfy the “three backups” rule. Because the only thing you’re really protecting against is maybe user error. I.e. accidental deletion or modification. You’re not protecting against filesystem corruption or system failure.
For a (little bit hyperbolic) example, if you put the system that has your live data on it through a wood chipper, could you use one of the other copies to recover your critical data? If yes, it counts. If no, it doesn’t.
Snapshots have the same issue, because at the root a snapshot is just an additional copy of the data. There’s additional automation, deduplication, and other features baked into the snapshot process but it’s basically just a fancy copy function.
Edit: all of the above is also why the saying “RAID is not a backup” holds true.
Right so I guess the question of 3 is whether it means 3 backups or 3 copies. If we take it literally - 3 copies, then it does protect from user error only. If 3 backups, it protects against hardware failure too.
E: Seagate calls them copies and explicitly says the implementer can choose how the copies are distributed across the 2 media. The woodchipper scenario would be handled by the 2 media requirement.
-
- Primary ZFS pool with automatic snapshots
