Re: [PLUG] Best Solution for Multiple Volume Backups

[Walt Mankowski via plug <plug@lists.phillylinux.org>]

We've had a few questions like this come up on the list lately. Since
we don't have a speaker lined up for North tomorrow night, that might
be a great time to have discussions like this. :)

Walt

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 03:40:58PM -0400, Rich Freeman via plug wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:13 PM Keith C. Perry via plug
> <plug@lists.phillylinux.org> wrote:
> >
> > 10+TB is very large change set.
> 
> Well, transfer-wise, yes, but one hard drive these days can hold more
> than that.  But I did want to make it clear that I'm not looking for
> "create a tarball and stick it on a USB stick."
> 
> > Have you considered running nilfs2 for your backup system filesystem and dumping that data to an LTO tape set?
> 
> LTO seems a bit overkill/expensive for my needs here.  While I'm over
> 10TB I'm not talking about hundreds of TB.  An LTO drive costs
> hundreds of dollars just for something old like LTO5, and you also
> need to make sure you're getting the right combo of drives,
> enclosures, HBAs, and so on (plus a host to stick all this stuff in).
> 
> For just 10-20TB stored to hard drives I can just use modestly-priced
> USB3 hard drives which keeps things simple.
> 
> If I were over 100TB then LTO would make a lot more sense.  Or if I
> wanted to be more rigorous with my backup sets (tapes are marginally
> cheaper so you can afford to have a few extra just to rotate them more
> effectively).
> 
> > What I currently do dump to an 8Tb filesystem container on my LizardFS net.
> 
> Much of this data is medium-priority data already on LizardFS with
> snapshots/redundancy/etc.  In theory it isn't the end of the world if
> I lose it so I don't want to spend a fortune on backup.
> 
> However, I'm reaching a point where if I just lost it all that would
> be pretty frustrating, so having an offline copy of the more valuable
> stuff would be desirable.
> 
> I'm starting to look at Bacula but reading the docs just serves to
> remind me why I got away from it in the first place.  It is fairly
> tape-centric and it seems to be lacking when it comes to the concept
> of "please insert disk 2".  Granted, with USB3 hard drives I guess I
> could mount more than one at a time if I had to.  It is just really
> clunky.
> 
> I should look at duplicity and see if that can easily span multiple
> drives.  I've never used it that way.
> 
> Oh, I didn't mention it up-front, but encryption would also be useful.
> If I were desperate I could probably use LUKS on the disks but if the
> backup software can natively do encryption that would be ideal.  I'm
> trying to move more to encrypted disks for just about everything
> because then when a disk dies I don't have to worry so much about
> wiping/etc - just toss it in the trash...
> 
> -- 
> Rich
> 
> -- 
> Rich
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
> Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
> General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug