Re: [Hampshire] Large Backup for long term storage
On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 12:22:34 +0100, hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk said: > What I need to know is if I've missed an "obvious" solution? Is SD card > reliable for long term storage. Buy a NAS, set up RAID-5 (or similar), backup then put NAS in the loft / friend's house / bury in the garden with the bodies / whatever. Not the cheapest, but reliable and no ongoing costs. -- Linux Tips: https://www.tiger-computing.co.uk/category/techtips/ -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Large Backup for long term storage
buy cheap pc or raid storage device and archive to that. at least it will just power up and you can access over lan, so in ten yrs you wount be routing around for that legacy cable you need. Hd has been my pref for over 20yrs ... 2x5TB external segate drives. I have had some losses but with error checking and pairs of drives , it’s usually recoverable. Sent from my iPhone On 6 Apr 2021, at 12:23, rmluglist2--- via Hampshire wrote: Hi all I’ll spare you all the detail but I need to backup 16Tb to some sort of archive – i.e. unlikely to ever need it in a hurry. I know 16Tb is a lot for a “home” situation but I can’t find anything reasonable. Can anyone tell me if there’s an option I’m missing: I’ve looked at: * HDD (the cheapest and most fragile) * Tape (the dearest but prone to mechanical failure) and * Cloud (privacy issues and would mean an ongoing cost as well as a dreadful time to upload (16Tb over a 16MBps upload is no joke – and would mean a lot of checksums to make sure it was all ok once uploaded). What I need to know is if I’ve missed an “obvious” solution? Is SD card reliable for long term storage. Cheers R -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk -- -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Large Backup for long term storage
Hi, I just use HDDs. I make at least 2 copies of everything, and keep an index of what has been stored on each HDD. So I know what to redo if a disk fails. I then integrity check the disks every few years. After 5 years, I refresh the data. Add a new HDD, and transfer all the data over to it. This ensures that all the data has had at least one full write cycle every 5 years. I figure that no media will last forever, and thus ensure that no backups are older than 5 years. I also tend to add extra hash files to the backup, for example sha512sum of the files, so I can detect any bit-flips. Kind Regards James On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 at 12:23, rmluglist2--- via Hampshire wrote: > > Hi all > > > > I’ll spare you all the detail but I need to backup 16Tb to some sort of > archive – i.e. unlikely to ever need it in a hurry. I know 16Tb is a lot > for a “home” situation but I can’t find anything reasonable. Can anyone tell > me if there’s an option I’m missing: > > > > I’ve looked at: > > * HDD (the cheapest and most fragile) > > * Tape (the dearest but prone to mechanical failure) and > > * Cloud (privacy issues and would mean an ongoing cost as well as a dreadful > time to upload (16Tb over a 16MBps upload is no joke – and would mean a lot > of checksums to make sure it was all ok once uploaded). > > > > What I need to know is if I’ve missed an “obvious” solution? Is SD card > reliable for long term storage. > > > > Cheers > > R > > -- > Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk > Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire > LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk > -- -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Large Backup for long term storage
> I’ve looked at: > > * HDD (the cheapest and most fragile) A powered off hard drive isn't necessarily that fragile. Otherwise some kind of RAID of >8TB drives would do nicely, maybe coupled with something like rsnapshot. > > * Tape (the dearest but prone to mechanical failure) and > > * Cloud (privacy issues and would mean an ongoing cost as well as a dreadful > time to upload (16Tb over a 16MBps upload is no joke – and would mean a lot > of checksums to make sure it was all ok once uploaded). Have a look at backblaze.com, they offer some very compelling pricing. Sure the initial sync is going to be slow, but I doubt your daily churn is horrific enough to cause issues once you've synced initially. Even holding data for a long time is going to be more cost effective than Tape. Backblaze has also been pretty cool in the past for publishing their server chassis designs and huge amounts of disk drive failure analysis. > > What I need to know is if I’ve missed an “obvious” solution? Is SD card > reliable for long term storage. > Flash memory is not considered safe for offline archive storage. Chris -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Large Backup for long term storage
On Tue, 6 Apr 2021, at 13:49, Chris Ellis via Hampshire wrote: > Have a look at backblaze.com, they offer some very compelling pricing. I think this depends whether you can use their 'unlimited' personal backup ($60 per year). If there's some 'fair use' policy that doesn't let you store 16 TB, then their 'B2' cloud service is more like $1000 per year for this much. Even Amazon's 'Glacier deep archive' would be around $360 per year (with extra costs if you need to retrieve it). Some sources online reckon that good quality optical discs (but definitely not the cheap dye-based ones) are still a viable option, if you want to write the data once and then have it sit on a shelf for years. But Blu-Ray discs only go up to 50 or 100 GB per disc, which isn't practical for storing 16 TB. Sony sells 'optical disc archive' cartridges up to 5.5 TB, but it looks like the drive to write & read these costs thousands. Thomas -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Large Backup for long term storage
On Tue, 6 Apr 2021, at 12:22, rmluglist2--- via Hampshire wrote: > * Cloud (privacy issues and would mean an ongoing cost as well as a dreadful > time to upload I'm not particularly advocating this, but if you do go for the cloud option, the big 3 cloud providers all have services where they send hard drives to you, you fill them up and return them, instead of uploading data. AWS calls it 'Snowcone', Azure 'Data box' and Google 'Transfer appliance'. You pay extra for this, naturally, but not much extra if the costs of cloud storage already look reasonable. Thomas-- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Large Backup for long term storage
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 4:08 PM Thomas Kluyver via Hampshire wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Apr 2021, at 13:49, Chris Ellis via Hampshire wrote: > > Have a look at backblaze.com, they offer some very compelling pricing. > > I think this depends whether you can use their 'unlimited' personal backup > ($60 per year). If there's some 'fair use' policy that doesn't let you store > 16 TB, then their 'B2' cloud service is more like $1000 per year for this > much. Even Amazon's 'Glacier deep archive' would be around $360 per year > (with extra costs if you need to retrieve it). > Their pretty open about unlimited being unlimited and has been for years: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-is-committed-to-unlimited-backup/ Backblaze will also mail to / from HDDs Chris -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
