Why do people have more than 2 backups?

safety

>>55848025
>>55848051
How do you count backups?

>>55848025
Redundancy, nigger, do you speak it?

>On-site local backup for quick restores
>On-site remote backup to safeguard against hardware failure
>Off-site remote backup for safeguards against attacks or disaster


There's 3 right there, I'm sure people could come up with reasons for more.

>>55848066
>On-site remote backup

>>55848092
Yes, nigger. On site remote backup, as in a backup stored in the same building but on a different machine than the one you are currently using.

>>55848066
Proper backup strategy:

1. Use a snapshotting filesystem and make frequent read-only snapshots locally (cron)

2. Sync these snapshots to a dedicated box running the same filesystems (for immediate tolerance against faults of the first machine)

3. At scheduled intervals, record these snapshots onto permanent media (e.g. tapes, or hard drives for smaller environments) and archive them

I do almost the same thing at home, except for the “sync snapshots to a dedicated box” part. (I sync them to a dedicated FS in the same PC)

ITT: babbys too poor for gigabit ethernet

There's no reason to have any files on your computer instead of on a network file server

>>55848189
There's no reason to ever buy a network file server for a single-user scenario. You're literally spending more money and increasing your risk of failure for no benefit. The people who do it for single-user scenarios are just hipster “sysadmins” still in the “pet your server” mindset, who like the feeling of having a home server. (Feel free to show a counterexample)

Also,
>Gigabit ethernet
topkek. Even a SHITTY hard drive these days will easily saturate 3 Gbps or more. Assuming you actually have a RAID of sorts, you'd be mental to bottleneck it by 1 Gbps ethernet. If you want networked attached storage with no downside, you need to get at least 10GE - otherwise you'd literally be *better* off installing the drives directly into your PC.

Also, I hope you enjoy using NFS or whatever shitty abomination of an enterprise-ready remote file system you're using, which will undoubtedly cause extra overhead and instability in any deployment (no matter what - NFS is really, really shitty).

>>55848099
>Yes, nigger. On site remote backup, as in a backup stored in the same building but on a different machine than the one you are currently using.
If you set this up correctly it can be good protection against ransomware too.

>>55848189
>There's no reason to have any files on your computer
Kill yourself.

>>55848189
Gigabit Ethernet isn't 500MB/s.

While it is true the majority of the storage available to my computer is in the form of my fileserver I keep some stuff local for pure speed performance.

And you still need a backup solution for your server. I am currently setting up a script to btar my server data.

>>55848233
>The people who do it for single-user scenarios are just hipster “sysadmins” still in the “pet your server” mindset, who like the feeling of having a home server.
You're right, but that's not going to stop me.

>>55848295
The two key aspects of backups (IMO) are:

1. Immutability (read-only). If you can write to your backups (including e.g. using ‘dd’), they're not backups.

2. Redundancy (fault tolerance). If losing a single drive/device/whatever means losing your backups, they're not backups.

If a backup solution violates either of these two principles, it's not a backup solution. It's the property #1 that protects you against e.g. cryptolockers, and it's the property #2 that protects you against device failure.

A remote “backup” device (e.g. file server) that is network mounted in a way that you can write to, it violates #1 and is therefore not a backup.

>>55848374
You're fine to experience joy and bliss in having a home server, but please don't go on /g/ and spout such nonsense as “there's no reason to have any files on your computer”

>>55848404
Well, if your backup drive fails just get a new drive and backup again.