5 ms·
> This wouldn't have been an issue if the organization bought a $1,000 NAS and populated it with a few hard drives. Okay hang on now.. that strategy comes with
by ktm5j 2mo ago
> This wouldn't have been an issue if the organization bought a $1,000 NAS and populated it with a few hard drives.
Okay hang on now.. that strategy comes with its own risks. Risks that I imagine PBS was trying to avoid by using a third party that specializes in archival data storage. This is a silly takeaway.
Edit: I was too quick to comment. I think they are suggesting that the NAS should have been used in addition to the third party storage, which is actually a great takeaway.
- MostlyStable 2mo agoHaving that be there only backup solution would have been silly and dangerous. Having it be part of their overall backup solution including with something like the provider would have been smarter and better and prevented this entire problem
- ndiddy 2mo ago> It's not clear if the channel has backups of its data, but based on its determination, we suspect not. This is strange, though, especially for a major organization, as one can easily purchase a six-bay NAS on [Amazon] and populate it with [the best HDDs]. I think they just put that stuff in so they could shill their affiliate marketing articles rather than out of any actual concern.
- mcmcmc 2mo ago3 copies, 2 different media, 1 offsite. One backup is none
- embedding-shape 2mo ago1 copy, one other media, is better than 0 copies. Clearly 1 != 0.
- remuskaos 2mo agoI first read that as 0! = 1, which, incidentally, is true.
- bblb 2mo agoIf you had zero copies, then you'd have no data. The 3-2-1 includes the production data itself. You have one copy of data (the data that needs to be backed up), and you have two additional copies of that data (the "3" in the strategy), where one of the backup copies is stored offsite (the "1" part), which naturally follows that it satisfies the middle "2" also. For over a decade we used 4-3-2 strategy, but it got expensive fast and due to ever evolving budget cuts, our (local gov) customers weren't ready to pay the extra. There's also 3-2-1-1-0, but that's just a fancy way of saying you _really_ should be doing those restore tests you never seem to have the time, because ransomware can and _will_ corrupt your backup copies. edit: the absolute minimal setup that still satisfies the 3-2-1 rule: 1) you have your data in production directory on local NVMe stick inside your computer, 2) you copy the original production data to another directory inside the very same NVMe, 3) you occasionally manually copy the production directory data to USB and store that USB inside the shed in your backyard. - That's it. Now your home data is covered by the coveted "3-2-1" enterprise ready backup strategy.
- anonymars 2mo agoImportantly, "one cloud vendor" is also none
- jerf 2mo agoI read it as a statement of just how little data this is by modern standards more than anything else. This company is going out of business and PBS is losing this valuable data, and there's legal drama and multiple corporate entities involved, and if you read all that you might think this is some amazing amount of data that is actually difficult to deal with. Instead it's something I could stroll down to Best Buy right now, plonk down my personal credit card, and walk out with enough stuff to do a credible backup job myself, and we're not even challenging my credit limit or anything. 10 years ago, this was a lot of data. It isn't anymore and it makes it that much more bizarre that they're having that much trouble getting it back. It would be less to just give them access and let them download it themselves and perhaps stick it somewhere else temporarily than to pay lawyers to deal with legal filings. To put it in vaguely physical terms, what once was a university library is now a good solid bookshelf full of stuff. Legally wrangling over a huge library is one thing, but if it's just a bookshelf, metaphorically, let them come in for an hour and clean it out themselves rather than bringing in the law. Obviously not a perfect metaphor on data size, this is more about how lawsuits are more of a hassle then just giving it to them.
- mindslight 2mo ago> 10 years ago, this was a lot of data. More like 20 years ago (sorry). 10 years ago this would have been slightly stretching, but not by much - 11x8TB raidz3. Shuckable drives would have cost $3300 (plus the chassis), and already out of the husk probably 1.5x more. So let's say $5500 total even back then. (I built my current array around the same time) Funny, these days you could do it with 4 spindles (4x24TB raidz2) but with the rampant price inflation in storage, you're still looking at $4500.
- js2 2mo agoI recently pulled up my resume from 25 years ago and came across this amusing (by today's standards) tidbit: "Re-located a web-server farm between two data centers with zero downtime. This included migrating over 150GB of data between three Network Appliance Filers and moving more than 12 racks of equipment." A whopping 150GB!
- 2mo ago
- OutOfHere 2mo agoA NAS is at risk from malware that can erase all of it. 100GB Bluray discs exist and work more easily for archival storage, as does multi-terabyte tape drive storage, both of which can stay disconnected At least two offline copies, combined with error correction codes, are advised. A cloud backup is also advised.
- Melatonic 2mo agoIt's really too bad the disc based storage options made after Blu-ray were discontinued. They made a lot of progress and seem a lot more user friendly than tape.
- tim-- 2mo agoSony's Optical Disc Archive (https://pro.sony/en_AU/products/optical-disc https://pro.sony/en_AU/products/optical-disc) is alive and kicking. Each cartridge basically uses 11 optical discs for 5.5TB per Cartridge and ~300MB/sec transfer speed[0]. It's last update was in 2019. Too bad we won't see a new generation, as Sony has basically killed any future development. Folio Photonics has just got some funding and they are saying they will be able to launch with capacities of 10 TB per cartridge. ODA was never better than using LTO. [0] https://pro.sony/en_GB/press/optical-disc-archive-generation-3-new-long-life-media https://pro.sony/en_GB/press/optical-disc-archive-generation...
- Melatonic 2mo agoWhy not ? It seemed decent. Well - besides the lame Sony proprietary usual mumbo jumbo
- tim-- 2mo agoI assume because realistically, LTO has already a large share of the backup market in business/enterprise, and for most people, offsite backups either through the internet, or 3-2-1 using portable hard drives are easier and cheaper. ODA is expensive. The drives reportadly die quickly, and LTO is the animal you know. ODA only ever had one manufacturer. I believe LTO still has two or three? (IBM, HPE and maybe Quantum, but I think they are IBM). Putting all of your eggs in one basket is never a good idea. There were a few rumours going around that Amazon Glacier were using ODA for backups 10+ years ago, but I'm pretty sure they were just That-rumours.
- echoangle 2mo agoTechnically you're still correct even when you would advocate for both. Every additional copy increases the risk that the data is accessed by someone else.
- mulmen 2mo agoWhat risk? The point of PBS is “other people access the data.”
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- Tangurena2 2mo agoIt was 70 years of video that they had broadcast to the public. This isn't anything remotely proprietary.
- thebitguru 2mo agoThe point still stands, but in what world can you build a 50TB NAS for $1,000 these days? I want to go there
- dghughes 2mo agoYeah I bought a five bay Synology NAS two or three years ago I think it and three 18TB WD Red drives total cost $3,000CAD? I was going to save up for two more drives. Now each drive is $1,000 CAD a 150% jump. edit: I checked $1,350 each so about 250% jump ugh!
- nairboon 2mo ago$1000 is for the NAS, they still need to populate it with a couple of drives.