6 ms·

Synchronisation is not backup. Almost every restore that I've performed for myself and others resulted from accidental deletion. Sync propogates accidental dele

Synchronisation is not backup. Almost every restore that I've performed for myself and others resulted from accidental deletion. Sync propogates accidental deletion. It also doesn't make your data resilient to malware, bit rot or removal of data for TOS violation.

GordonS 4y ago
> Sync propogates accidental deletion This is true, but it's so worth noting some sync products (e.g. Seafile) can keep a history of changes, allowing you to restore deleted files. Sync is not backup though, as you allude to.
- jermaustin1 4y ago
  This is what I do. I sync to my NAS, my NAS syncs to my Backblaze B2 with file versioning. My current monthly bill is only $4... I cannot believe how cheap Backblaze has been. I can even get the B2 URL and share a file anytime I want from inside my NAS. Is it as easy as Dropbox? No, but I haven't missed using dropbox. I just mount my NAS to my RDP sessions when I need files "synced" between my various computers.
  - Groxx 4y ago
    I've been eyeballing this kind of setup lately, because Dropbox has become so hostile to simple use. Hours of delay between "changed small text file" and "synced", endless "bugs" that push things to cloud-first storage rather than the synced folders I have set up, and using more and more resources with every upgrade. I'm so sick of their business-oriented shift. </rant> Got a favorite NAS that works well? Without the risk of the vendor's cloud deciding to delete your data? I haven't yet picked one, beyond "what if I just used a Pi and some USB drives..."
    - jermaustin1 4y ago
      I use Synology. Its not the best, but it Just Works and got the "Shell" for only $120, plopped in 2 8TB spinners, and haven't really touched it other than moving house 3 times. If I was going to do it over again, I would get one of their commercial grade NASes/ They are a bit more expensive but have a decent CPU and RAM in them and can run VMs/containers/etc and be your own little cloud. They also have some cool features like, the ability to link 2 remote Synology NASes together and sync back and forth as well as backing up to any backup service you want.
    - anderspitman 4y ago
      Check out syncthing an rclone if you're not already aware of them.
    - outworlder 4y ago
      Not the person you are asking, but I got some leftover computer parts that I had been amassing for years, bought a few drives and added TrueNAS to it. It can do anything the big consumer NAS can, and a lot more. If it fails, it uses off the shelf components. The only thing that could have been done better is ECC memory (for some people that's a dealbreaker). In which case, one can get a server from ebay for a pittance which will fit the bill.
teddyh 4y ago
“Just as we respect and care for our ancestors, so we must respect and care for our old backups, for one day they may achieve great glory.” — http://www.taobackup.com/history.html http://www.taobackup.com/history.html
- proactivesvcs 4y ago
  LOL! Sage and hilarity in one small story. Reading through the rest now :-)
Jeff_Brown 4y ago
I use Borg and Rclone together, to cover both aspects. One unexpectedly nice thing about that is a Borg repo consists of far fewer files than the thing it backs up, so Google is unlikely to rate limit you as described in the article.
- proactivesvcs 4y ago
  Agreed - using a sync service can help bring in data to be backed up, or make copies of a backup. The advantage you mentioned is one of many that we get from using a backup system for backups.
- schainks 4y ago
  Is there any documentation on how you did this? I'm very interested ^_^
MikusR 4y ago
Syncthing (and probably other sync utilities) allow versioning and keeping deleted files in separate directory.
- proactivesvcs 4y ago
  Yup, which are great for noticing you deleted a file accidentally, before you went to lunch. But for anything more than very simple, recent restoration, versioning is not a backup. It (can/does) mangle file names, metadata, folder structure and can be a nightmare to perform larger restores with. Versions are a convenience.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
m463 4y ago
> Synchronization is not backup. also RAID is not backup. :) also related: https://www.jwz.org/doc/backups.html https://www.jwz.org/doc/backups.html
- teddyh 4y ago
  From your link: > RAID is a waste of your goddamned time and money. Backups are important, since they protect against most problems, whereas RAID only protects you from exactly one thing: On RAID, when one disk has a hardware failure, the system keeps on running. In many cases, if you take appropriate precautions, you might even be spared a reboot when you unplug the failed disk and plug in a new, working disk. Otherwise you’ll simply have to shut down, quickly unplug the failed disk, plug in the new, working disk, start up and it’s all good again. You can even put off this downtime to a later, more appropriate time of the day. When the new disk is in the machine, the sync to the new disk can be done while the system is running, and the only system downtime is for physically exchanging the disks. Without RAID, the hardware failure means that you: 1. Lose all files and changes since your last backup, and 2. Have significant downtime while you restore from your last backup. If done over the network, this could take a very long time, but even if restoring from local disk, copying takes a lot of time. While copying, your system is down. Whether this means that RAID is a waste of your time and money depends on your personal tolerance of points 1 and 2.
layer8 4y ago
It is if it supports history/versioning.
zeagle 4y ago
Agree. It can be but you need to insert version control in there to protect from this. Either as a software package, iterative backups, or the file system.

GordonS 4y ago

> Sync propogates accidental deletion This is true, but it's so worth noting some sync products (e.g. Seafile) can keep a history of changes, allowing you to restore deleted files. Sync is not backup though, as you allude to.

jermaustin1 4y ago
This is what I do. I sync to my NAS, my NAS syncs to my Backblaze B2 with file versioning. My current monthly bill is only $4... I cannot believe how cheap Backblaze has been. I can even get the B2 URL and share a file anytime I want from inside my NAS. Is it as easy as Dropbox? No, but I haven't missed using dropbox. I just mount my NAS to my RDP sessions when I need files "synced" between my various computers.
- Groxx 4y ago
  I've been eyeballing this kind of setup lately, because Dropbox has become so hostile to simple use. Hours of delay between "changed small text file" and "synced", endless "bugs" that push things to cloud-first storage rather than the synced folders I have set up, and using more and more resources with every upgrade. I'm so sick of their business-oriented shift. </rant> Got a favorite NAS that works well? Without the risk of the vendor's cloud deciding to delete your data? I haven't yet picked one, beyond "what if I just used a Pi and some USB drives..."
  - jermaustin1 4y ago
    I use Synology. Its not the best, but it Just Works and got the "Shell" for only $120, plopped in 2 8TB spinners, and haven't really touched it other than moving house 3 times. If I was going to do it over again, I would get one of their commercial grade NASes/ They are a bit more expensive but have a decent CPU and RAM in them and can run VMs/containers/etc and be your own little cloud. They also have some cool features like, the ability to link 2 remote Synology NASes together and sync back and forth as well as backing up to any backup service you want.
  - anderspitman 4y ago
    Check out syncthing an rclone if you're not already aware of them.
  - outworlder 4y ago
    Not the person you are asking, but I got some leftover computer parts that I had been amassing for years, bought a few drives and added TrueNAS to it. It can do anything the big consumer NAS can, and a lot more. If it fails, it uses off the shelf components. The only thing that could have been done better is ECC memory (for some people that's a dealbreaker). In which case, one can get a server from ebay for a pittance which will fit the bill.

teddyh 4y ago

“Just as we respect and care for our ancestors, so we must respect and care for our old backups, for one day they may achieve great glory.” — http://www.taobackup.com/history.html http://www.taobackup.com/history.html

proactivesvcs 4y ago
LOL! Sage and hilarity in one small story. Reading through the rest now :-)

Jeff_Brown 4y ago

I use Borg and Rclone together, to cover both aspects. One unexpectedly nice thing about that is a Borg repo consists of far fewer files than the thing it backs up, so Google is unlikely to rate limit you as described in the article.

proactivesvcs 4y ago
Agreed - using a sync service can help bring in data to be backed up, or make copies of a backup. The advantage you mentioned is one of many that we get from using a backup system for backups.
schainks 4y ago
Is there any documentation on how you did this? I'm very interested ^_^

MikusR 4y ago

Syncthing (and probably other sync utilities) allow versioning and keeping deleted files in separate directory.

proactivesvcs 4y ago
Yup, which are great for noticing you deleted a file accidentally, before you went to lunch. But for anything more than very simple, recent restoration, versioning is not a backup. It (can/does) mangle file names, metadata, folder structure and can be a nightmare to perform larger restores with. Versions are a convenience.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

m463 4y ago

> Synchronization is not backup. also RAID is not backup. :) also related: https://www.jwz.org/doc/backups.html https://www.jwz.org/doc/backups.html

teddyh 4y ago
From your link: > RAID is a waste of your goddamned time and money. Backups are important, since they protect against most problems, whereas RAID only protects you from exactly one thing: On RAID, when one disk has a hardware failure, the system keeps on running. In many cases, if you take appropriate precautions, you might even be spared a reboot when you unplug the failed disk and plug in a new, working disk. Otherwise you’ll simply have to shut down, quickly unplug the failed disk, plug in the new, working disk, start up and it’s all good again. You can even put off this downtime to a later, more appropriate time of the day. When the new disk is in the machine, the sync to the new disk can be done while the system is running, and the only system downtime is for physically exchanging the disks. Without RAID, the hardware failure means that you: 1. Lose all files and changes since your last backup, and 2. Have significant downtime while you restore from your last backup. If done over the network, this could take a very long time, but even if restoring from local disk, copying takes a lot of time. While copying, your system is down. Whether this means that RAID is a waste of your time and money depends on your personal tolerance of points 1 and 2.

layer8 4y ago

It is if it supports history/versioning.

zeagle 4y ago

Agree. It can be but you need to insert version control in there to protect from this. Either as a software package, iterative backups, or the file system.