Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Building a Home Server

  • 20-07-2011 10:10am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24


    Ok, so i need to build a home server during the year for my parents, they need it to do two things host files (video, music etc) which is the easy part, however it also needs to be able to block adult sites in the house, so im assuming some sort of proxy server, but this is something I have never set up before. I am planning to sit it in between the router and a wireless router so it blocks the sites at the source.

    My question really is, what OS would be best, and also is it difficult to set it up to block adult content, but still allow access to xbox live & psn, basically without blocking other internet access?


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,249 ✭✭✭✭Kinetic^


    Try http://ipcop.org/ with samba (file sharing software) installed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭qwertz


    Get a small NAS for file storage and setup parental controls on all the PCs or (if available) on the modem/router. Running a NAS will also reduce your electricity bill.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭rolion


    Hi,no offence,just curious ...but what is wrong to let your parents accessing those web sites !?
    Is a sort of "pay back" system !??

    :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    qwertz wrote: »
    Get a small NAS for file storage
    Cheaper option to boot, that (unless you have a spare machine sitting round to repurpose as a NAS). And think carefully before deciding to get a 2/4-disk raid box for the NAS; lots of those on the market, but for a small home use, they may not be the best choice, unless you know you're going to need more than ~2Tb of storage. Plus, don't forget that you still need backups, RAID or no RAID...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,340 ✭✭✭bhickey


    NAS for the file server and OpenDNS for the filtering. Job done.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭qwertz


    Sparks wrote: »
    Cheaper option to boot, that (unless you have a spare machine sitting round to repurpose as a NAS). And think carefully before deciding to get a 2/4-disk raid box for the NAS; lots of those on the market, but for a small home use, they may not be the best choice, unless you know you're going to need more than ~2Tb of storage. Plus, don't forget that you still need backups, RAID or no RAID...

    Good point. A NAs (and any other disk-based storage system) is not suitable for backups.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,340 ✭✭✭bhickey


    qwertz wrote: »
    A NAs (and any other disk-based storage system) is not suitable for backups.

    Not true. Most NAS's run on Linux and you can setup Rsync and other backups to other servers/media if you wish. There are whole websites/forums dedicated to doing this sort of stuff,


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    The thing is bhickey, they're talking about NAS-to-NAS backups.
    A NAS can be a backup for another NAS, but there are some pretty deep limitations:
    • You need serious network bandwidth for image backups of large NAS drives (and you have to do one of those at least once a month, preferably more often);
    • The odds are high that your backup for your primary NAS is sitting right longside your primary NAS, so one bad physical accident (fire, theft, etc) can wipe out your primary and your backup in one go;
    • Your backup NAS has to be bigger than your primary NAS or else you can only ever have one backup at any one time

    Personally, I'm looking into building a small home server at the moment, to act as a NAS and backup server for a few laptops; I'm thinking two 100-odd Gb drives in RAID1 for the OS and 4 1Tb drives (Hitachi) in a RAID5+hot spare config for storage (to start with - I may add more 1Tb drives later, and no, I don't want 3Tb drives because rebuilding a 1Tb stripe if a disk fails is a lengthy enough process to be doing that I'm seriously pondering RAID6 instead), and I'm seriously looking to tape for backups because I can do an image backup every week (and incrementals daily) and swap tapes and keep one tape in the office (the nearest secure place I have convenient access to).

    Right now, I just do rsync incrementals of some directories off my own laptop to my web server over in Germany, but while that's saved my bacon this week (my laptop drive is dying and it had the only copy of the wedding photos and video until I added those directories to the rsync list -- losing that data would have seen herself indoors having my guts for garters), it's not really a viable option for multi-terabyte backup unless you have UPC's 100Mb/s connection or are on Magnet's FTTH pilot.

    If anyone has any opinions on tape backup systems, by the way, I would love to hear them. I mean, I'm looking at LTO-5 and balking at the price, but swapping DAT tapes 85 times to get an image backup would be ridiculous.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭qwertz


    bhickey wrote: »
    Not true. Most NAS's run on Linux and you can setup Rsync and other backups to other servers/media if you wish. There are whole websites/forums dedicated to doing this sort of stuff,

    Under the right circumstances a NAS is perfectly fine as a primary storage device. Bear in mind that the only thing RAID gives you is protection from hard-drive failure (single or multiple, depending on the RAID level). It doesn't protect you from data corruption or human error.

    A reasonable backup strategy (to tape, disk, CD/DVD) is required for the actual daily/weekly/monthly/whateverly backup that will be the thing that saves your backside when you suffer an outage.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,588 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Just a note on rsync, in passing ...

    You might also be interested in rsnapshot - if you are familiar with rsync, rsnapshot is easy to figure out. I use it for backing up a big file server where users can easily delete lots of files ...

    (More info on rsnapshot.org)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    i wouldn't touch any kind of tape backup system at this stage tbh. they're overkill for home use (imho) as well as slow, awkward and expensive.

    a blu-ray writer is still going to use a fcuktonne of discs and is going to get really expensive over time depending on your backup schedule and how long you want to keep them for.

    with hard disk prices dropping almost daily, i see no reason not to backup straight to disk.

    if you're seriously talking about offsite redundancy of any kind surely disk backups fit the bill better than tapes anyway? if you're going to ship tapes offsite then why not a USB or removable caddy mounted disk(s)?

    also, don't forget that with (local) disk based backups anything after the initial backup is going to be incremental unless you're going to worry about multiple file versions, but i think leaving that at the primary storage level is going to be more than adequate, even if you do implement it.

    there's plenty of ways to mitigate your potential losses too using cloud based options if you group your data by type and level of importance. family pictures can all go up to picasa, important docs can go up to google docs or dropbox etc, video's bulk uploaded to youtube or vimeo (or similar, pick your poison as with most) and most of these jobs can at least be semi-automated with the right tools and again, everything after the first batch will be incremental.

    lets be honest though, if (assuming you're anything like me ;)) you're backing up more than a couple of terabytes of data as a home user, a lot of that data isn't going to be 100% vital stuff that can't be replaced with a combination of re-downloading and borrowing from mates etc. so any offsite backup needs can *probably* be taken care of with the above cloud based options and a single or dual disk backup.

    as for RAID5 or RAID6 on your storage, did you read this last year? http://storagemojo.com/2010/02/27/does-raid-6-stops-working-in-2019/

    maybe i'm paranoid, but it scared the bejesus out of me. :)

    my current set up is a Thecus N7700 NAS (which i really wouldn't recommend in hindsight, awful fecking yoke) with 5x 1.5tb samsung spinpoints in RAID5 (approx 600gb free atm) which I'm backing up to an external eSata Startech SAT3540ER2 with 4x 2tb spinpoints in RAID5.

    as with the above suggestion, anything drastically important is also mirrored to a local 1tb disk in my desktop PC as well as being backed up online as well in one form or another but for the most part, looking at it in the cold hard light of day, the majority of my data isn't irreplaceable, so i'm not all that worried about it tbh and if my house burns down (knowing that the 100% vital stuff is still backed up online anyway) my multiple linux distro and old (out of copyright) movie & music collection :) will certainly be right down the bottom of my list of priorities.

    the next step in my own data race is replacing the NAS with this bad boy which i recently put together and is a HP ML110 G6 with 8x 2tb HDD's crammed in it (and a 250gb HDD on the top left wedged in with a piece of cardboard for anyone with eagle eyes :)).

    it's currently got ESXi v4.1 booting off a 4gb USB stick with the intention that i'll use an openfiler VM to handle all those 2tb drives to manage all my storage requirements and move it all off the NAS, but i've been procrastinating about the best way to actually present the drives to openfiler, so it's not quite completed yet.

    anyway, i might well be having more trouble than you are figuring out what to do with it all and i still haven't figured out how i'm going to back it all up, although, i suspect it will end up being a modified version of what's happening now.

    ho hum, it's bedtime anyway. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭rolion


    vibe666 wrote: »

    the next step in my own data race is replacing the NAS with this bad boy which i recently put together and is a HP ML110 G6 with 8x 2tb HDD's crammed in it (and a 250gb HDD on the top left wedged in with a piece of cardboard for anyone with eagle eyes :)).

    nice setup you have there ... 'my eagle eyes' cannot see the cooling fans or air vents for drives !!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    rolion wrote: »
    nice setup you have there ... 'my eagle eyes' cannot see the cooling fans or air vents for drives !!
    it actually runs pretty cool as it is. the case fan the server comes with could double up as the main fan for a hovercraft at full tilt, i'm actually afraid i'm going to find a cat stuck to the front of the box one day if it walks past it too close. :D

    having said that, it never runs at full speed (probably not even 30% most of the time) and you'd know it if it was, just by comparing it to the jet engine noise at POST and there is plenty of ventilation at the front for both drive bays.

    also, the immediate problem is that HP have kindly fitted 6 pin fan headers on the motherboard making it a little difficult to find extra fans. :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    vibe666 wrote: »
    i wouldn't touch any kind of tape backup system at this stage tbh. they're overkill for home use (imho) as well as slow, awkward and expensive.
    I don't really agree with that in general, but I have to agree at the moment - DAT drives are grand if you only have a few Gb to back up (anything up to 70Gb or so is managable), but the next step up seems to be LTO-5 and the drives are way too expensive right now. But tapes and disks have a habit of leapfrogging each other - one year tape's cheaper, the next disk is. And they're not slow, not if you have them on the right kind of bus, nor awkward if you have your backup procedure and software set up right.
    with hard disk prices dropping almost daily, i see no reason not to backup straight to disk.
    I can give you a few :)
    • Disks are not as reliable as tapes.
    • Disks are larger and heavier than tapes and not as physically robust as tapes.
    • Disks are therefore a pain in the tuckus to take off-site to rotate backups. And the harder a backup is to do, the more likely it is you'll skip it...
    • Disk failure modes aren't the same as tape failure modes. Leave a tape sit in its case in a cool dry place for a few years, it's ready to go the moment you take it out of the drawer. With disks, it might be ready to go; or you might have a component failure on startup. Tapes have no active parts in the cassette, so you don't have that problem.
    if you're seriously talking about offsite redundancy of any kind surely disk backups fit the bill better than tapes anyway? if you're going to ship tapes offsite then why not a USB or removable caddy mounted disk(s)?
    Because this is a home system. Sticking a dat tape in the drive on a sunday night and putting the tape that was in there into your case and bringing it to work the next day and locking it in the drawer at work is a perfectly acceptable offsite backup solution for home computers. Combine that with Amanda and you have a full home network backup solution.
    Doing that with a USB/caddy-ied hard drive is not as easy, because it's more expensive, more fragile, heavier and bulkier. It can be done; but the easier it is, the more likely it is you'll do it.
    also, don't forget that with (local) disk based backups anything after the initial backup is going to be incremental unless you're going to worry about multiple file versions, but i think leaving that at the primary storage level is going to be more than adequate, even if you do implement it.
    Any kind of backup (unless you're doing reverse deltas) will be incremental; but if you're not doing a regular image (say, once a month at least) then your backups will be easy to do and strictly speaking complete; but your recoveries will be like trying to reassemble the cow from a hamburger. If you have one image from two years ago, and incrementals every night since then and you want a file created last week....
    there's plenty of ways to mitigate your potential losses too using cloud based options if you group your data by type and level of importance. family pictures can all go up to picasa, important docs can go up to google docs or dropbox etc, video's bulk uploaded to youtube or vimeo (or similar, pick your poison as with most) and most of these jobs can at least be semi-automated with the right tools and again, everything after the first batch will be incremental.
    Er, no.
    If you have to sign EULAs that give away content rights, you aren't signing up to a backup system. Picasa is not a backup system for your family photos, for example, because all your files could be lost in an instant if your account was suspended (and there are more than enough tales of that happening in error that I wouldn't trust it with any file I didn't have a backup of).

    That's not to say that there aren't cloud-based backup options, like S3 or other online backup services (and Amanda now works with some of these natively, which makes things simpler). It's just that an online backup is not the same thing as a social media site.
    as for RAID5 or RAID6 on your storage, did you read this last year? http://storagemojo.com/2010/02/27/does-raid-6-stops-working-in-2019/
    maybe i'm paranoid, but it scared the bejesus out of me. :)
    No, that's paranoia :D
    However, there are real concerns with RAID 5/6:
    • RAID 5/6 requires generation of parity on the fly, which requires more computation than RAID1/0/10 do; not a problem if you're using hardware RAID, but that carries its own warning stickers. For software RAID, RAID5/6 means trading storage space for performance.
    • RAID 5 carries a risk in that hard drives have a tendency to fail in batches - so when one of your raid drives goes, the others may be very near their end of life as well. If one of them goes bang while you're rebuilding the drive that went bang first, you lose the entire array. And with 2Tb+ drives, rebuilding that first drive takes a while, increasing the size of the window where another failure is a critical one. RAID 6 alleviates this somewhat, but it's only reducing the probability, not eliminating the problem. With RAID 1/10 systems, you don't need to rebuild a drive, just mirror one of the other drives in the array with a straight /bin/dd copy; far faster, far safer. You do still have the risk of failure, but it's far lower because you're not thrashing the drive with seeks and reads, just doing one long continuous read.
    my current set up is a Thecus N7700 NAS (which i really wouldn't recommend in hindsight, awful fecking yoke) with 5x 1.5tb samsung spinpoints in RAID5 (approx 600gb free atm) which I'm backing up to an external eSata Startech SAT3540ER2 with 4x 2tb spinpoints in RAID5.
    What happens if you have a house fire? You lose your primary and your backup in one go. Same if you have a burglary, or any of the other disaster scenarios you have to plan for with a home network setup.
    if my house burns down (knowing that the 100% vital stuff is still backed up online anyway) my multiple linux distro and old (out of copyright) movie & music collection :) will certainly be right down the bottom of my list of priorities.
    If you can live with that, then yeah, go for it.
    Personally, I prefer my way - it means I don't have to explain to herself indoors that her MSc thesis is lost forever along with the wedding photos and video and my Phd work and so on.

    Just from interest, my current setup is a home server that acts as a NAS and a media server and seedbox, and will also act as the main Amanda backup server, a print server, and anything else I fire at it. 4x2Tb drives in a RAID10 array for the main storage array, 2x500Gb drives in a RAID1 array for the OS and local user files, all in a standard tower case with an overspecc'd PSU and room to expand as needed, with firewire and other handy interfaces because it's a normal (if older) desktop motherboard/CPU. Definitely a bit of overkill in some parts of the build, but for a good reason - some things will come down in price, like memory and hard drives, but others like the case and PSU won't; and my whole goal with the box was to build something I wouldn't have to spend much time on after it was set up. So far, it's running like a charm, and once it's fully installed, I'll write a bit more about it and do some benchmarking.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,521 ✭✭✭francois


    bhickey wrote: »
    NAS for the file server and OpenDNS for the filtering. Job done.

    +1 on OpenDNS, highly recomended


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    Sparks wrote: »
    I don't really agree with that in general, but I have to agree at the moment - DAT drives are grand if you only have a few Gb to back up (anything up to 70Gb or so is managable), but the next step up seems to be LTO-5 and the drives are way too expensive right now. But tapes and disks have a habit of leapfrogging each other - one year tape's cheaper, the next disk is. And they're not slow, not if you have them on the right kind of bus, nor awkward if you have your backup procedure and software set up right.
    damn you linux geeks and your well thought out logic and reason! :p
    Sparks wrote: »
    I can give you a few :)
    • Disks are not as reliable as tapes.
    • Disks are larger and heavier than tapes and not as physically robust as tapes.
    • Disks are therefore a pain in the tuckus to take off-site to rotate backups. And the harder a backup is to do, the more likely it is you'll skip it...
    • Disk failure modes aren't the same as tape failure modes. Leave a tape sit in its case in a cool dry place for a few years, it's ready to go the moment you take it out of the drawer. With disks, it might be ready to go; or you might have a component failure on startup. Tapes have no active parts in the cassette, so you don't have that problem.
    but you do have the initial set up costs to think about and a large number of tapes to store and manage which is still going to be either very expensive or take up a large amount of space somewhere, depending on what capacity tapes/drive you go for.
    Sparks wrote: »
    Because this is a home system. Sticking a dat tape in the drive on a sunday night and putting the tape that was in there into your case and bringing it to work the next day and locking it in the drawer at work is a perfectly acceptable offsite backup solution for home computers. Combine that with Amanda and you have a full home network backup solution.
    Doing that with a USB/caddy-ied hard drive is not as easy, because it's more expensive, more fragile, heavier and bulkier. It can be done; but the easier it is, the more likely it is you'll do it.
    are you sure this is a home system??? seriously, most people think i'm batty for having as much storage as i do, but you're adding a whole new level to it. :)
    Sparks wrote: »
    Any kind of backup (unless you're doing reverse deltas) will be incremental; but if you're not doing a regular image (say, once a month at least) then your backups will be easy to do and strictly speaking complete; but your recoveries will be like trying to reassemble the cow from a hamburger. If you have one image from two years ago, and incrementals every night since then and you want a file created last week....
    what's wrong with doing one full backup, then a weeks worth of incrementals, then consolidating those into one full backup (one of the joys of disk over tape backups) and then offsite that, then continue with the incremental backups from there for the next week, lather, rinse & repeat for a month and then wipe & re-use the oldest after a month?
    Sparks wrote: »
    Er, no.
    If you have to sign EULAs that give away content rights, you aren't signing up to a backup system. Picasa is not a backup system for your family photos, for example, because all your files could be lost in an instant if your account was suspended (and there are more than enough tales of that happening in error that I wouldn't trust it with any file I didn't have a backup of).
    that's the thing, you DO have a backup of them, unless whichever service you choose decides to cancel your account on the exact same day your house burns down and the chances of that happening are pretty slim i think.
    Sparks wrote: »
    That's not to say that there aren't cloud-based backup options, like S3 or other online backup services (and Amanda now works with some of these natively, which makes things simpler). It's just that an online backup is not the same thing as a social media site.
    i was just using a couple of examples off the top of my head, there's plenty of options. :)

    Sparks wrote: »
    No, that's paranoia :D
    However, there are real concerns with RAID 5/6:
    • RAID 5/6 requires generation of parity on the fly, which requires more computation than RAID1/0/10 do; not a problem if you're using hardware RAID, but that carries its own warning stickers. For software RAID, RAID5/6 means trading storage space for performance.
    • RAID 5 carries a risk in that hard drives have a tendency to fail in batches - so when one of your raid drives goes, the others may be very near their end of life as well. If one of them goes bang while you're rebuilding the drive that went bang first, you lose the entire array. And with 2Tb+ drives, rebuilding that first drive takes a while, increasing the size of the window where another failure is a critical one. RAID 6 alleviates this somewhat, but it's only reducing the probability, not eliminating the problem. With RAID 1/10 systems, you don't need to rebuild a drive, just mirror one of the other drives in the array with a straight /bin/dd copy; far faster, far safer. You do still have the risk of failure, but it's far lower because you're not thrashing the drive with seeks and reads, just doing one long continuous read.
    again though, we're talking about home systems so you have to decide at what point is it all just overkill?
    Sparks wrote: »
    What happens if you have a house fire? You lose your primary and your backup in one go. Same if you have a burglary, or any of the other disaster scenarios you have to plan for with a home network setup.
    but do you? i'd be willing to bet my socks that most home users idea of keeping backups is at most a single USB drive (if anything at all).

    Sparks wrote: »
    If you can live with that, then yeah, go for it.
    Personally, I prefer my way - it means I don't have to explain to herself indoors that her MSc thesis is lost forever along with the wedding photos and video and my Phd work and so on.
    aside from your data, what else in your home do you have backed up at all? if your house did burn down and you lost all your worldly possessions and everything you've collected over the years, if you were standing in front of the smouldering ruins and you turned to your wife and said "it's okay love, i have an offsite backup of the wedding pics and your MSc" would she really be all that bothered?
    Sparks wrote: »
    Just from interest, my current setup is a home server that acts as a NAS and a media server and seedbox, and will also act as the main Amanda backup server, a print server, and anything else I fire at it. 4x2Tb drives in a RAID10 array for the main storage array, 2x500Gb drives in a RAID1 array for the OS and local user files, all in a standard tower case with an overspecc'd PSU and room to expand as needed, with firewire and other handy interfaces because it's a normal (if older) desktop motherboard/CPU. Definitely a bit of overkill in some parts of the build, but for a good reason - some things will come down in price, like memory and hard drives, but others like the case and PSU won't; and my whole goal with the box was to build something I wouldn't have to spend much time on after it was set up. So far, it's running like a charm, and once it's fully installed, I'll write a bit more about it and do some benchmarking.
    i think we might have a race on! :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    vibe666 wrote: »
    but you do have the initial set up costs to think about and a large number of tapes to store and manage which is still going to be either very expensive or take up a large amount of space somewhere, depending on what capacity tapes/drive you go for.
    Well, if a DAT tape will suffice, you're not looking at a huge outlay really - around the €300 level or so and tapes are about €30 each and you'd want to have at least three of those. So you're paying less for the tape backup system than you are for the RAID drive. Now LTO-5, yeah, there it's a wallop - somewhere north of €3000 right now. But that will come down - DAT used to cost that much...
    are you sure this is a home system??? seriously, most people think i'm batty for having as much storage as i do, but you're adding a whole new level to it. :)
    I might be an odd case today, but give it a few years and this won't be enough for your average user...
    what's wrong with doing one full backup, then a weeks worth of incrementals, then consolidating those into one full backup (one of the joys of disk over tape backups) and then offsite that, then continue with the incremental backups from there for the next week, lather, rinse & repeat for a month and then wipe & re-use the oldest after a month?
    Nothing...
    ...if you do it.
    But the image/incremental work should all be automated and then it doesn't matter if it's tape or disk (you do have amanda handling all this for you, right?); so the only considerations are things like cost, bulk, robustness and so on.
    that's the thing, you DO have a backup of them, unless whichever service you choose decides to cancel your account on the exact same day your house burns down and the chances of that happening are pretty slim i think.
    To quote a google sysadmin, "Hope is not an acceptable plan" :D
    Besides which, you have copyright and privacy issues. Say you "backup" your photos of your kids to flickr or some similar media site and miss the bit in the EULA where it says you grant them copyright on the image; and then someone else swipes a copy of it and posts it somewhere on the net as some sort of I can haz cheezburger meme (and that's the least stomach-churning abuse of such an image I can come up with in polite company).

    And yes, it sounds like paranoia...
    ...but when you have to sign an EULA, it ceases to be paranoia and becomes an understanding of your legal rights and protections.
    again though, we're talking about home systems so you have to decide at what point is it all just overkill?
    Yup.
    Try doing it after explaining to your wife that the hard drive which held the only copy of the wedding video and the wedding photos is the one making that odd grinding noise and producing all the smoke.
    You think explaining a failed backup to your boss is tough? :D
    but do you? i'd be willing to bet my socks that most home users idea of keeping backups is at most a single USB drive (if anything at all).
    Well, it's definitely true that if you don't do the backups, you won't have the backups....
    aside from your data, what else in your home do you have backed up at all? if your house did burn down and you lost all your worldly possessions and everything you've collected over the years, if you were standing in front of the smouldering ruins and you turned to your wife and said "it's okay love, i have an offsite backup of the wedding pics and your MSc" would she really be all that bothered?
    For physical possessions, you have house insurance.
    For data, you have backups.
    i think we might have a race on! :D
    To a house fire? :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,249 ✭✭✭✭Kinetic^


    Online backups ftw :p


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Kinetic^ wrote: »
    Online backups ftw :p
    Yeah...
    ...if you have Magnet FTTH or UPC 100Mb/s lines.
    They're a bit more painful if you're on the lower speed ADSL lines, and nearly unusable if you have only dialup.
    I do have some files backed up to a server in germany (not with amanda, just with an rsync cronjob... so technically not really a backup so much as a second copy) but the first rsync run took almost a week to backup one directory (granted, a 19Gb directory with all our photos, but still).

    Still, I may need to bite the bullet on this one and use Amanda's S3 or other backup driver; LTO tapes were just outside the budget and even DAT-320 wasn't up to the job :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    something i was thinking about was to have a dual NAS sharing agreement with someone you trust, so that you both buy or build your own NAS to more or less the same spec, then put your data on yours, he/she puts theirs on their NAS and you meet up create a share for each other's vital data (i.e. forgetting dvdrips & mp3 collections) on your own NAS and then do an initial local sync between the two boxes and then go home, set up a vpn connection between yourselves, plug it in and let rsync or whatever take care of the incremental changes over the net?

    you'd probably want to keep a local backup to for convenience, but that ought to take care of the offsite part pretty well don't you think?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    You're basicly doing backup-by-NAS then. Which is fine, if you don't mind paying for the extra space you can't use and you don't mind your backup being in someone elses house with no control over it.

    In other words, yeah, it'd do the job, but I'd prefer something else personally :D

    (Example: After a year, to save space, you scan all your bank statements, credit card statements, mortgage stuff, etc, etc, and shred the originals and archive the scans. Would you really be happy with someone else having that data on a server they control physically? If so, cool.)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭qwertz


    Sparks wrote: »
    You're basicly doing backup-by-NAS then. Which is fine, if you don't mind paying for the extra space you can't use and you don't mind your backup being in someone elses house with no control over it.

    In other words, yeah, it'd do the job, but I'd prefer something else personally :D

    (Example: After a year, to save space, you scan all your bank statements, credit card statements, mortgage stuff, etc, etc, and shred the originals and archive the scans. Would you really be happy with someone else having that data on a server they control physically? If so, cool.)

    Not just that, even though I agree with what you said, you also have no control over the availability of your data that is stored outside your network. Companies die on a daily basis and several ones that initially looked very good went down and took their customers' data with them. In a lot of cases that data was gone while in some, mostly after going to court or threatening with legal action, data was made available again. Your data (even the backups) not being availabe can break your back as well.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    qwertz wrote: »
    Not just that, even though I agree with what you said, you also have no control over the availability of your data that is stored outside your network. Companies die on a daily basis and several ones that initially looked very good went down and took their customers' data with them.
    True. There really isn't any way to get round that in the cloud though. Especially when you need Gb to Tb levels of backup space. I mean, I have my own server in germany which hosts a few websites and has 250Gb or so of free space, but if you start backing up more than that, it's more cost-effective to go with an online service like backblaze or s3. And when you do that, well, nothing's risk-free or tradeoff-proof. Disaster recovery system design is an exercise in choosing the lesser of several evils :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    i think johnny mnemonic had the only truly effective backup method, anything less than uploading everything directly into your brain is a half arsed effort imho. :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭rolion


    Guys...honest,i have lost it....what type od data are we talking here !??

    i have customers with 100 users and in business for 20 years and their full data,archives,exchange,invoicing,photos...ALL fits on a LTO3 400GB tape...


    sorry,but what are we trying to protect here !??


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    rolion wrote: »
    sorry,but what are we trying to protect here !??
    EVERYTHING! :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    For me, about 140-150Gb of data (that's not including entertainment media files which come to a bit more, but which I don't really care to back up live, but it is including hi-def video footage taken during training). Plus another 30Gb or so of data from herself indoors. Website data even for businesses just don't take up as much space as images, video and several years worth of large documents.

    So right now, the image and the incrementals for a week or two would fit on an LTO-4...
    ...but an LTO-4 drive goes for about €1600 or so. You might squeeze it onto a DAT-320 but their drives start around €650; and that's almost the cost of the entire server.


Advertisement