Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #25726 > unrolled thread

My darn NAS...

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi

Contents

  My darn NAS... nospam.paul.lee@f420.n105.z1.binkp.net (paul lee) - 2021-01-10 17:46 +1300
    Re: My darn NAS... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 04:10 +0000
      Re: My darn NAS... nospam.paul.lee@f420.n105.z1.binkp.net (paul lee) - 2021-01-12 00:28 +1300
        Re: My darn NAS... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 10:26 +0000
        Re: My darn NAS... Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-12 10:57 +0000
          Re: My darn NAS... Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-01-12 12:16 -0500
            Re: My darn NAS... Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-12 18:04 +0000
              Re: My darn NAS... Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-12 18:38 +0000
              Re: My darn NAS... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 12:20 +0000
                Re: My darn NAS... Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-13 12:42 +0000
                Re: My darn NAS... Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 12:39 +0000
                  Re: My darn NAS... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 14:23 +0000
                    Re: My darn NAS... Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 18:21 +0000
                      Re: My darn NAS... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:25 +0000
                        Re: My darn NAS... Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2021-01-14 12:58 +0000
                          Re: My darn NAS... TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-14 13:10 +0000
                          Re: My darn NAS... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 13:35 +0000
                Re: My darn NAS... Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> - 2021-01-13 17:33 +0000
                Re: My darn NAS... nospam.paul.lee@f420.n105.z1.binkp.net (paul lee) - 2021-01-13 16:22 +1300
          Re: My darn NAS... nospam.paul.lee@f420.n105.z1.binkp.net (paul lee) - 2021-01-12 13:20 +1300
            Re: My darn NAS... Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-13 09:46 +0000
              Re: My darn NAS... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 12:21 +0000
              Re: My darn NAS... nospam.paul.lee@f420.n105.z1.binkp.net (paul lee) - 2021-01-13 16:20 +1300
                Re: My darn NAS... Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-14 08:56 +0000
                  Re: My darn NAS... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 11:06 +0000
                    Re: My darn NAS... TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-14 11:43 +0000
                      Re: My darn NAS... Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-14 12:22 +0000
                        Re: My darn NAS... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 12:43 +0000
                        Re: My darn NAS... Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-14 13:29 +0000
                          Re: My darn NAS... druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2021-01-14 17:42 +0000
                      Re: My darn NAS... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 12:36 +0000
                      Re: My darn NAS... Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-14 13:22 +0000
                      Re: My darn NAS... nospam.Richard.Falken@f1.n770.z6840.fidonet.org (Richard Falken) - 2021-01-14 11:45 +1300
                        Re: My darn NAS... Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-14 18:05 +0000
                        Re: My darn NAS... TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-14 18:29 +0000
                          Re: My darn NAS... Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-14 18:35 +0000
                            Re: My darn NAS... TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-15 11:25 +0000
                    Re: My darn NAS... nospam.Richard.Falken@f1.n770.z6810.fidonet.org (Richard Falken) - 2021-01-14 06:36 +1300
                      Re: My darn NAS... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 12:53 +0000
                        Re: My darn NAS... Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-14 13:19 +0000
                          Re: My darn NAS... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 14:29 +0000
                            Re: My darn NAS... Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-14 14:52 +0000
                          Re: My darn NAS... druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2021-01-14 17:31 +0000
                      Re: My darn NAS... Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-14 13:24 +0000
                        Re: My darn NAS... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 13:39 +0000
                          Re: My darn NAS... Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-14 14:07 +0000
                          Re: My darn NAS... Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-14 15:22 +0000
                          Re: My darn NAS... Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> - 2021-01-14 20:08 +0000
                            Re: My darn NAS... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-15 08:34 +0000
                    Re: My darn NAS... Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-14 13:17 +0000
                    Re: My darn NAS... Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-16 12:30 +0000
                  Re: My darn NAS... nospam.paul.lee@f420.n105.z1.binkp.net (paul lee) - 2021-01-18 17:57 +1300
                    Re: My darn NAS... Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-19 13:37 +0000
                      Re: My darn NAS... nospam.paul.lee@f420.n105.z1.binkp.net (paul lee) - 2021-01-21 18:06 +1300
    Re: My darn NAS... Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-11 10:15 +0000
      Re: My darn NAS... Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-11 15:16 +0000
        Re: My darn NAS... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 15:31 +0000
          Re: My darn NAS... Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-11 18:05 +0000
      Re: My darn NAS... nospam.paul.lee@f420.n105.z1.binkp.net (paul lee) - 2021-01-12 00:31 +1300
        Re: My darn NAS... Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-01-12 12:19 -0500
          Re: My darn NAS... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 12:09 +0000
    Re: My darn NAS... druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2021-01-11 10:25 +0000
      Re: My darn NAS... nospam.paul.lee@f420.n105.z1.binkp.net (paul lee) - 2021-01-12 00:35 +1300
        Re: My darn NAS... Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-01-12 12:25 -0500
          Re: My darn NAS... druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2021-01-12 19:32 +0000
    Re: My darn NAS... "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2021-01-11 15:39 +0000

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#25817

paul lee <nospam.paul.lee@f420.n105.z1.binkp.net> wrote:
>  CG> I had a T430 that died (very unusual for Lenovo T series), I now have
>  CG> a T470 I bought used off eBay for rather less than I expected, lovely!
> 
> I love the ThinkPad hardware; and while the T430/T440 series have SOME of the 
> cool stuff from the old days, they are just beginning to be a little long in 
> the tooth for me. I'm not very hardware intensive, but... I will be looking at 
> some other ThinkPad models in the future. I might just bite the bullet and go 
> CURRENT T-series, but I haven't decided just yet.
> 
>  CG> My WiFi connection reports that it is 300Mb/s but the real speed is
>  CG> never anything like that.  Here are my results sending from T470
>  CG> laptop (WiFi connection, reports as 300Mb/s) to desktop:-
>  CG> 
>  CG> bone-debian-9.4-console-armhf-2018-07-08-1gb.img                  100%
>  CG> 850MB 16.2MB/s   00:52
>  CG> 
>  CG> So I get about half the 'expected' speed, also quite similar to your
>  CG> speeds I think.
> 
> Understood... however, you are getting a LITTLE better speeds than me; I wonder 
> what type of WiFi chip/card is in the T470 vs what is CURRENT??? Maybe it would 
> be worth it, for me, to upgrade the WiFi chip/card in my T430s to the best it 
> will take, OR whatever is current in 2021... 
> 
> Even if I won't get the 100mb/s that I had THOUGHT, I'd probably see a better 
> transfer rate anyway. Hmmmmm...
> 
Is it really that important or significant?  I.e. does it really
matter if a transfer takes 15 seconds rather than 10 seconds?

I run my (incremental, so rarely really huge) backups overnight via
anacron so whether they take 10 minutes or 30 minutes doesn't matter
at all.  As long as they complete before I wake up in the morning it's
fine.

-- 
Chris Green
·

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25822

On 13/01/2021 09:46, Chris Green wrote:
> Is it really that important or significant?  I.e. does it really
> matter if a transfer takes 15 seconds rather than 10 seconds?

It starts to matter when live streams - audio or video - start to fail 
and stutter...

-- 
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit 
atrocities.”

― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de 
Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de 
M. de Voltaire

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25872

 CG> > Even if I won't get the 100mb/s that I had THOUGHT, I'd probably see a b
 CG> > transfer rate anyway. Hmmmmm...
 CG> Is it really that important or significant?  I.e. does it really
 CG> matter if a transfer takes 15 seconds rather than 10 seconds?
 CG> 
 CG> I run my (incremental, so rarely really huge) backups overnight via
 CG> anacron so whether they take 10 minutes or 30 minutes doesn't matter
 CG> at all.  As long as they complete before I wake up in the morning it's
 CG> fine.

While I suppose you're right about the bigger backups being at night, the files 
I work with WOULD benefit from any and all transfer increases. I mean... a lot 
of 4k movies & videos, backups of 1TB drives, etc etc.

Yes, nighttime backups can go so far.. but I do sit and wait while things 
transfer. A lot.

I still haven't went to the network room and put the laptop on the ethernet - 
I'm going to... maybe today.

I'm thinking that if, while connected to ethernet, I get good transfer rates 
that way I'll just connect to ethernet if I'm going to do a bunch of big 
transfers - and I might check into getting the latest Wifi chips across my 
entire network so that when on Wifi its at least a LITTLE quicker. If I can do 
both of those things I think I'll be pretty well setup.



|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25883

paul lee <nospam.paul.lee@f420.n105.z1.binkp.net> wrote:
>  CG> > Even if I won't get the 100mb/s that I had THOUGHT, I'd probably see a b
>  CG> > transfer rate anyway. Hmmmmm...
>  CG> Is it really that important or significant?  I.e. does it really
>  CG> matter if a transfer takes 15 seconds rather than 10 seconds?
>  CG> 
>  CG> I run my (incremental, so rarely really huge) backups overnight via
>  CG> anacron so whether they take 10 minutes or 30 minutes doesn't matter
>  CG> at all.  As long as they complete before I wake up in the morning it's
>  CG> fine.
> 
> While I suppose you're right about the bigger backups being at night, the files 
> I work with WOULD benefit from any and all transfer increases. I mean... a lot 
> of 4k movies & videos, backups of 1TB drives, etc etc.
> 
When you backup a 1TB drive do you actually copy the whole 1TB?  It's
a huge waste of time and space and you can't keep so many backups.
Use some form of incremental backup and also backup *selectively*.

I just backup /home, /etc and a few other odds and ends that have
customisation or configuration in them.  There are ready made
incremental backup systems like rsnapshot which I used for a while but
then I wrote my own (quite similar but does *exactly*) what I want.
There's no need to back up /usr as you can simply reinstall everything
there.

For example on my desktop machine I keep short-term incremental
backups on a separate drive, my 1TB /home is 38% full but my
multilevel incremental backups only occupy 20% of the 1TB backup
drive. 'Multilevel' means I have hourly backups for the last 9 hours,
daily backups for the last 7 days and weekly backups for 5 weeks.

My longer term (daily) backups go to an offsite machine, a typical
incremental backup of my 38% full /home plus the other bits and pieces
only takes a couple of minutes because only the *changes* since the
day before are saved.

-- 
Chris Green
·

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25889

On 14/01/2021 08:56, Chris Green wrote:
> When you backup a 1TB drive do you actually copy the whole 1TB?  It's
> a huge waste of time and space and you can't keep so many backups.
> Use some form of incremental backup and also backup*selectively*.

depends on what you want. I rsync huge amounts of data. Disk space is 
cheap. Recovering from data loss is not, Working out what is important 
and what is not is even more expensive.





-- 
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all 
private property.

Karl Marx

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25891

On 14 Jan 2021 at 11:06:48 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

> On 14/01/2021 08:56, Chris Green wrote:
>>  When you backup a 1TB drive do you actually copy the whole 1TB?  It's
>>  a huge waste of time and space and you can't keep so many backups.
>>  Use some form of incremental backup and also backup*selectively*.
> 
> depends on what you want. I rsync huge amounts of data. Disk space is 
> cheap. Recovering from data loss is not, Working out what is important 
> and what is not is even more expensive.

Incremental backup as done by Time Machine allows many more backups. It's done
with hard links, so a file is backed up the first time, but hard links are
created for subsequent backups. This means that what is presented to me when I
want to do a restore from a selected date just looks an ordinary folder as it
would appear on the Desktop. I highlight one or more files/folders with the
mouse and click Restore. No farting about with command line options that I
have no interest in remembering.

Disk space may be cheap, but then you have to manage it. And remember - if you
make backup/restore complicated then noddy users won't do it.

-- 
Tim

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25894

On 14 Jan 2021 11:43:24 GMT
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> Disk space may be cheap, but then you have to manage it. And remember -
> if you make backup/restore complicated then noddy users won't do it.

	You can make it as easy as you like and they still won't. A long
time ago I set up a system for a customer with an overnight backup schedule
and prepared a box of QIC tapes labelled Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri, Fri, Fri
and left instructions to change the tape daily and keep all but one of the
Fri tapes offsite cycling them round each week. Many months later the hrd
disc failed during the nightly backup so after replacing the drive and
finding the backup corrupt I asked for the previous night's tape - it
emerged that they had *never* changed the tape.

	We all learned something that day.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25896

On 14/01/2021 12:22, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2021 11:43:24 GMT
> TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> 
>> Disk space may be cheap, but then you have to manage it. And remember -
>> if you make backup/restore complicated then noddy users won't do it.
> 
> 	You can make it as easy as you like and they still won't. A long
> time ago I set up a system for a customer with an overnight backup schedule
> and prepared a box of QIC tapes labelled Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri, Fri, Fri
> and left instructions to change the tape daily and keep all but one of the
> Fri tapes offsite cycling them round each week. Many months later the hrd
> disc failed during the nightly backup so after replacing the drive and
> finding the backup corrupt I asked for the previous night's tape - it
> emerged that they had *never* changed the tape.
> 
> 	We all learned something that day.
> 
Exactly. My rsyncs are done by 3 am cronjob. I have two VPSes out there 
in internet land, and one big server in house. They all get copied onto 
a secondary disk. If  any disk goes, I have full backups, except if the 
secondary disk goes I have a BIG cronjob the night and day after a new 
one goes in :-)

I have never really successfully restored from a tape. And the drive 
costs more than 4TB of disk.

So far i've had one backup drive die on me - well nearly. started giving 
errors.

And accidentally deleted a file and restored it from last nights backup 
half a dozen times, and rebuilt *this* desktop completely using the 
backup as a source of remembering what config changes I had made to a 
raw install.

Works for me. YMMV


-- 
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone 
gets full Marx.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25906

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2021 11:43:24 GMT
> TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> 
> > Disk space may be cheap, but then you have to manage it. And remember -
> > if you make backup/restore complicated then noddy users won't do it.
> 
>         You can make it as easy as you like and they still won't.

So you make it automatic.  I backup my wife's laptop with incremental
backups, she doesn't have to do anything, any time her laptop is
connected to our LAN overnight (quite often) it gets backed up to the
NAS in the garage.  It works just the same for my systems (desktop,
laptop, pi server), they get backed up automatically every night.  I'm
far to lazy to actually do any backups that require action on my part
(and I suspect most people are the same).

Since they're incremental backups they don't eat space very fast, my
8TB NAS disk is only 5% full since moving to it from a 3TB one.  The
3TB one was about 5 years old (backups back to 2015) and was 50% full,
though that wasn't *all* incremnentals.

-- 
Chris Green
·

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25921

On 14/01/2021 13:29, Chris Green wrote:
> So you make it automatic.  I backup my wife's laptop with incremental
> backups, she doesn't have to do anything, any time her laptop is
> connected to our LAN overnight (quite often) it gets backed up to the
> NAS in the garage.  It works just the same for my systems (desktop,
> laptop, pi server), they get backed up automatically every night.  I'm
> far to lazy to actually do any backups that require action on my part
> (and I suspect most people are the same).

That's the way it should be.

> Since they're incremental backups they don't eat space very fast, my
> 8TB NAS disk is only 5% full since moving to it from a 3TB one.  The
> 3TB one was about 5 years old (backups back to 2015) and was 50% full,
> though that wasn't *all* incremnentals.

The difference with my dozen or so Pi's is I do the incremental backup 
to the NAS, not directly onto its filing system, but into an image file 
which was created from the Pi's SD card. This means that if any of the 
Pi's SD cards fail, I can just get a card of the same size and write the 
image file straight back on to it, and be up and running again in minutes.

---druck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25895

On 14/01/2021 11:43, TimS wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2021 at 11:06:48 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 14/01/2021 08:56, Chris Green wrote:
>>>   When you backup a 1TB drive do you actually copy the whole 1TB?  It's
>>>   a huge waste of time and space and you can't keep so many backups.
>>>   Use some form of incremental backup and also backup*selectively*.
>>
>> depends on what you want. I rsync huge amounts of data. Disk space is
>> cheap. Recovering from data loss is not, Working out what is important
>> and what is not is even more expensive.
> 
> Incremental backup as done by Time Machine allows many more backups. It's done
> with hard links, so a file is backed up the first time, but hard links are
> created for subsequent backups. This means that what is presented to me when I
> want to do a restore from a selected date just looks an ordinary folder as it
> would appear on the Desktop. I highlight one or more files/folders with the
> mouse and click Restore. No farting about with command line options that I
> have no interest in remembering.
> 
> Disk space may be cheap, but then you have to manage it. And remember - if you
> make backup/restore complicated then noddy users won't do it.
> 
well what I have on my SECOND drive is  complete directory trees of 
three machines and its all exported by NFS so all I have to do is mount 
it , navigate to the file I need and move it across to where it needs to go.

Hardly onerous!

-- 
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and 
all women"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25907

TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2021 at 11:06:48 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
> > On 14/01/2021 08:56, Chris Green wrote:
> >>  When you backup a 1TB drive do you actually copy the whole 1TB?  It's
> >>  a huge waste of time and space and you can't keep so many backups.
> >>  Use some form of incremental backup and also backup*selectively*.
> > 
> > depends on what you want. I rsync huge amounts of data. Disk space is 
> > cheap. Recovering from data loss is not, Working out what is important 
> > and what is not is even more expensive.
> 
> Incremental backup as done by Time Machine allows many more backups. It's done
> with hard links, so a file is backed up the first time, but hard links are
> created for subsequent backups. This means that what is presented to me when I
> want to do a restore from a selected date just looks an ordinary folder as it
> would appear on the Desktop. I highlight one or more files/folders with the
> mouse and click Restore. No farting about with command line options that I
> have no interest in remembering.
> 
Exactly, my backups are like that.  Every one of them looks exactly
like my normal home directory, just copy the files back as needed.


> Disk space may be cheap, but then you have to manage it. And remember - if you
> make backup/restore complicated then noddy users won't do it.
> 
Yes, again very true, I am just about my only user (possibly 'noddy')
but I'm lazy, automatic backups are the only reliable ones!

-- 
Chris Green
·

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25923

  Re: Re: My darn NAS...
  By: TimS to All on Thu Jan 14 2021 11:43 am

 > Incremental backup as done by Time Machine allows many more backups. It's do
 > with hard links, so a file is backed up the first time, but hard links are
 > created for subsequent backups. This means that what is presented to me when
 > want to do a restore from a selected date just looks an ordinary folder as i
 > would appear on the Desktop. I highlight one or more files/folders with the
 > mouse and click Restore. No farting about with command line options that I
 > have no interest in remembering.

Hard link based incremental backups are great. I do a lot of it with rsync.
There is something worth mentioning, though:

You may use hard link based backups in order to make a snapshot per week, but
if a file remains unchanged for long, all your hard links will be pointing to
the same file in your backup drive. This means if the file gets corrupted you
have no copies of it despite having 500+ "images". I have seen it happen and it
is not pretty.

It didn't happen to me, thankfully :-P BUt it pays to run some integrity checks
fro tieme to time, or at least have backups of the backup.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25924

Richard Falken <nospam.Richard.Falken@f1.n770.z6840.fidonet.org> wrote:
>   Re: Re: My darn NAS...
>   By: TimS to All on Thu Jan 14 2021 11:43 am
> 
>  > Incremental backup as done by Time Machine allows many more backups. It's do
>  > with hard links, so a file is backed up the first time, but hard links are
>  > created for subsequent backups. This means that what is presented to me when
>  > want to do a restore from a selected date just looks an ordinary folder as i
>  > would appear on the Desktop. I highlight one or more files/folders with the
>  > mouse and click Restore. No farting about with command line options that I
>  > have no interest in remembering.
> 
> Hard link based incremental backups are great. I do a lot of it with rsync.
> There is something worth mentioning, though:
> 
> You may use hard link based backups in order to make a snapshot per week, but
> if a file remains unchanged for long, all your hard links will be pointing to
> the same file in your backup drive. This means if the file gets corrupted you
> have no copies of it despite having 500+ "images". I have seen it happen and it
> is not pretty.
> 
> It didn't happen to me, thankfully :-P BUt it pays to run some integrity checks
> fro tieme to time, or at least have backups of the backup.
> 
Yes, of course that's true, one reason why I keep more than one
incremental backup of my system (and they're on different machines).

-- 
Chris Green
·

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25925

On 13 Jan 2021 at 22:45:19 GMT, Richard Falken <Richard Falken> wrote:

>   Re: Re: My darn NAS...
>   By: TimS to All on Thu Jan 14 2021 11:43 am
> 
>  > Incremental backup as done by Time Machine allows many more backups. It's do
>  > with hard links, so a file is backed up the first time, but hard links are
>  > created for subsequent backups. This means that what is presented to me when
>  > want to do a restore from a selected date just looks an ordinary folder as i
>  > would appear on the Desktop. I highlight one or more files/folders with the
>  > mouse and click Restore. No farting about with command line options that I
>  > have no interest in remembering.
> 
> Hard link based incremental backups are great. I do a lot of it with rsync.
> There is something worth mentioning, though:
> 
> You may use hard link based backups in order to make a snapshot per week, but
> if a file remains unchanged for long, all your hard links will be pointing to
> the same file in your backup drive. This means if the file gets corrupted you
> have no copies of it despite having 500+ "images". I have seen it happen and it
> is not pretty.

I don't know whether Time Machine does this or not, or perhaps limits the
number of hard links to any file and creates a new complete backup of teh file
and starts again.

On my main file machine I've set TM to use a second disk; it alternates
between them, so this is some protection.

-- 
Tim

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25926

TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2021 at 22:45:19 GMT, Richard Falken <Richard Falken> wrote:
> 
> >   Re: Re: My darn NAS...
> >   By: TimS to All on Thu Jan 14 2021 11:43 am
> > 
> >  > Incremental backup as done by Time Machine allows many more backups. It's do
> >  > with hard links, so a file is backed up the first time, but hard links are
> >  > created for subsequent backups. This means that what is presented to me when
> >  > want to do a restore from a selected date just looks an ordinary folder as i
> >  > would appear on the Desktop. I highlight one or more files/folders with the
> >  > mouse and click Restore. No farting about with command line options that I
> >  > have no interest in remembering.
> > 
> > Hard link based incremental backups are great. I do a lot of it with rsync.
> > There is something worth mentioning, though:
> > 
> > You may use hard link based backups in order to make a snapshot per week, but
> > if a file remains unchanged for long, all your hard links will be pointing to
> > the same file in your backup drive. This means if the file gets corrupted you
> > have no copies of it despite having 500+ "images". I have seen it happen and it
> > is not pretty.
> 
> I don't know whether Time Machine does this or not, or perhaps limits the
> number of hard links to any file and creates a new complete backup of teh file
> and starts again.
> 
> On my main file machine I've set TM to use a second disk; it alternates
> between them, so this is some protection.
> 
That's a rather neat idea, I might get my backup system to do it.

-- 
Chris Green
·

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25932

On 14 Jan 2021 at 18:35:35 GMT, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:

> TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

>>  I don't know whether Time Machine does this or not, or perhaps limits the
>>  number of hard links to any file and creates a new complete backup of teh file
>>  and starts again.

I'm told that, in fact, TM does have this issue.

>>  On my main file machine I've set TM to use a second disk; it alternates
>>  between them, so this is some protection.
>>  
> That's a rather neat idea, I might get my backup system to do it.

I also discovered that TM can use any number of drives and uses them
round-robin. If the next one is not mounted it just skips it. So I've added a
third drive that was just kicking around. It's a USB SSD so easy to remove.

-- 
Tim

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25897

  Re: Re: My darn NAS...
  By: The Natural Philosopher to Chris Green on Thu Jan 14 2021 11:06 am

 > depends on what you want. I rsync huge amounts of data. Disk space is
 > cheap. Recovering from data loss is not, Working out what is important
 > and what is not is even more expensive.
 > 

I agree with this position.

I know that just backing up the data that is not easily reproductible suffices,
in theory. However, if you only back the data up without the applications and
the OS stack, your recovery consits on a sysadmin installing software for a
week and swearing at his notebook.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25898

On 13/01/2021 17:36, Richard Falken wrote:
>    Re: Re: My darn NAS...
>    By: The Natural Philosopher to Chris Green on Thu Jan 14 2021 11:06 am
> 
>   > depends on what you want. I rsync huge amounts of data. Disk space is
>   > cheap. Recovering from data loss is not, Working out what is important
>   > and what is not is even more expensive.
>   >
> 
> I agree with this position.
> 
> I know that just backing up the data that is not easily reproductible suffices,
> in theory. However, if you only back the data up without the applications and
> the OS stack, your recovery consits on a sysadmin installing software for a
> week and swearing at his notebook.
> 
>
Well I do reinstall all apps BUT remembering what the config files were 
called, what changes were made  and where they were, is something I 
prefer to leave for that recovery phase.

In general a well crashed primary disk is an excuse to upgrade everything...



-- 
There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons 
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25905

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 13/01/2021 17:36, Richard Falken wrote:
> >    Re: Re: My darn NAS...
> >    By: The Natural Philosopher to Chris Green on Thu Jan 14 2021 11:06 am
> > 
> >   > depends on what you want. I rsync huge amounts of data. Disk space is
> >   > cheap. Recovering from data loss is not, Working out what is important
> >   > and what is not is even more expensive.
> >   >
> > 
> > I agree with this position.
> > 
> > I know that just backing up the data that is not easily reproductible suffices,
> > in theory. However, if you only back the data up without the applications and
> > the OS stack, your recovery consits on a sysadmin installing software for a
> > week and swearing at his notebook.
> > 
> >
> Well I do reinstall all apps BUT remembering what the config files were 
> called, what changes were made  and where they were, is something I 
> prefer to leave for that recovery phase.
> 
I make very sure that all the configuration is either in /home or
/etc, most programs do behave properly and keep their configurations
in the right place.


> In general a well crashed primary disk is an excuse to upgrade everything...
> 
Yes, so why would one back up /usr ??

-- 
Chris Green
·

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.raspberry-pi

csiph-web