4 ms·
I would argue that EBS snapshots should not be used as a backup solution. EBS is reliable, but isn't engineered for the same durability as say, S3. These also b
by ckozlowski 5y ago
I would argue that EBS snapshots should not be used as a backup solution. EBS is reliable, but isn't engineered for the same durability as say, S3. These also become more unwieldy and less useful the older they get. Use EBS snapshots for rollback prior to making changes to your environment.
For durable backup I'd recommend storing objects in S3/Glacier. If you need to image an entire volume, make an AMI, which is stored in S3. Much more durable and targeted than a snapshot, and in the case of S3 objects, gives you benefits such as logging and version control.
- forty 5y agoAren't EBS snapshots stored on S3? :)
- ckozlowski 5y agoThey are (and in going to look that up I see that they're being pitched as more of a backup solution than they were previously) but given they're incremental and based on the existing EBS volume, I'd still recommend using something without dependencies. I'm curious now as to how the EBS Snapshot was lost. If I had to guess, I suspect it had something to with that linkage back to the original volume. I maintain that the best backup has no dependencies on another resource existing.
- uuyi 5y agoWe never got a straight answer from AWS. We now run an instance in another region and account and rdiff-backup to it.
- forty 5y agoIt's a good point. There is a relatively new feature to archive EBS snapshots [1] which stores non incremental snapshots [1] https://aws.amazon.com/fr/blogs/aws/new-amazon-ebs-snapshots-archive/ https://aws.amazon.com/fr/blogs/aws/new-amazon-ebs-snapshots...
- imtringued 5y agoFor most people Glacier is a terrible solution.
- JohnL4 5y agoWhy?