10mo ago

What is your preferred method for backing up several TB of data?

What storage software could I run to have an archive of my personal files (a couple TB of photos) that doesn't require I keep a full local copy of all the data? I like the idea of a simple and focused tool like Syncthing, but they seem to be angling towards replication.

Is the simple choice to run some S3-like backend and use CLI or other client to append and browse files? I'd love something with fault tolerance that someone can gradually add disks to. If ceph were either less complicated or used less resources I'd want to do that.

You're viewing a single thread.

58 comments

that doesn't require I keep a full local copy of all the data
If you don't do that, the place that you call "backup" is the only place where it is stored - that is not a Backup. A backup is an additional place where it is stored, for the case when your primary storage gets destroyed.
- "Local" as in the machine I am using to work on, which has a 256 GB SSD. Not as in "on-site" and "off-site."
  
  In the IT world, we just call that a server. The usual golden rule for backups is 3-2-1:
  3 copies of the data total, of which
  2 are backups (not the primary access), and
  1 of the backups is off-site.
  So, if the data is only server side, it's just data. If the data is only client side, it's just data. But if the data is fully replicated on both sides, now you have a backup.
  There's a related adage regarding backups: "if there's two copies of the data, you effectively have one. If there's only one copy of the data, you can never guarantee it's there". Basically, it means you should always assume one copy somewhere will fail and you will be left with n-1 copies. In your example, if your server failed or got ransomwared, you wouldn't have a complete dataset since the local computer doesn't have a full replica.
  I recently had a a backup drive fail on me, and all I had to do was just buy a new one. No data loss, I just regenerated the backup as soon as the drive was spun up. I've also had to restore entire servers that have failed. Minimal data loss since the last backup, but nothing I couldn't rebuild.
  Edit: I'm not saying what your asking for is wrong or bad, I'm just saying "backup" isn't the right word to ask about. It'll muddy some of the answers as to what you're really looking for.
  
  Yes, I do see that. I'm definitely getting answers to a question I didn't intend. I was hoping for more of an rsync but that something which also provides viewing and incremental backups to an offsite. I don't know how to phrase that, and perhaps for what I want it makes more sense to have rsync/rclone to copy files around and something else to view.
  
  It is not that easy to understand what you want, to me it reads like you want something like Nextcloud - i.e. your own little cloud, where you can put all your stuff, and view it through the webbrowser or the nextcloud apps, and also keep selected parts of your stuff in sync with your devices (or automatically upload photos take with your smartphone for example).
  Backup of Nextcloud (or whatever you want to use) is a seperate topic. Any incremental backup tool would apply though, so there's much to choose from. I personally use btrbk which uses Btrfs Send+Receive to push incremental snapshots to an offsite server.

58 comments