Data archiving

File: wd.png (186KB, 1129x467px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1129x467px

>>331522

>>331523
This looks great, thanks anon! I'm still open for other recommendations but this is pretty much what I'm looking for.

>>331522

If reliability is your goal go for RAID. That means at least two identical disks with mirrored content. Horray for awesome redundancy which is awesome!
However since you "only" have 6 TB of data that would be quite expensive at that size. But it's the most safe one.

>>331529
If you want pure longevity consider looking into magnetic tape drives

>>331522
Follow the 3-2-1 rule my friend: at least 3 backups, on at least 2 different forms of media, with at least one off-site

>>331540
Didn't even know this was a thing in the current year

>>331544
Yeah I already have 2 external HDD's with the most important data, old as shit but it'll do for now.

>>331535
This seems to be the best option, but I already know it won't be cheap. I'll probably do that.

Thanks for the answers, you helped me out a lot on what to read up on.

>>331535
No, make the backup twice on different devices.

RAID provides availability of the storage device (and also increased speed or reduced read latency) If one of the drives fails, you can still use the array and swap in a replacement drive whilst you're doing so. This is *availability*. RAID provides availability, because that's what it's for.

If your backup program writes zeroes over the metadata telling it where all the backups are kept, RAID will write these zeros to all the drives, so that the zeroes are available to the backup program immediately. There's no way to get your metadata back, because RAID doesn't provide *backup*.

RAID is perfectly good at what it does, but backup is not what it does, and you shouldn't use it as a substitute for backup, and you certainly shouldn't use it thinking it's backup.

>>331674
thanks for clarifying that. I think I'll just keep around 3 externals at all times and be done with it.

File: how do i database.png (161KB, 1159x885px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1159x885px

>>331674

Most people aren't retards that "rm /*", get ransomwared, or otherwise corrupt all their data every other week. RAID 1/5/6 is fine if ~all~ you care about is protecting against drive failures. Especially if all your files are animu/games (like most anons) that you could redownload if shit hits the fan.

>>331544

This is advice for business settings and is overkill for home users.

>>331724
>This is advice for business settings and is overkill for home users
I still have some leftover hdds, those will do. In times like these where torrent sites get abandoned and purged out of the blue I don't really want to risk losing a lot of obscure stuff I've been collecting.

>>331724
So what you're saying is that RAID is good at being a backup so long as you're only using it in scenarios where you don't need a backup?