Instead of using BB, get a Synology/Qnap/FreeNAS box to backup all your stuff locally, and back that up to another service (e.g. Glacier or Synology's own C2).
Instead of using BB, get a Synology/Qnap/FreeNAS box to backup all your stuff locally, and back that up to another service (e.g. Glacier or Synology's own C2).
B2/S3 is what most people want.
Then I realized that S3 Glacier and Deep Archive were even less expensive than B2. I took a bit further of a look and found that Glacier/DA files have some fairly chonky metadata that must be stored in normal S3, and for a lot of our images the metadata was larger than the image in question. So Glacier/DA would increase our storage costs. Over all it probably wasn't a money-saving situation.
The ideal use case is to bundle those up into a tar file or something and store those large files, and manage the metadata and indexing/access ourselves.
So, using rclone to copy 11TB of data to B2.
Can you elaborate on this part?
But these days you can store objects in an S3 bucket and specify the storage class as "GLACIER" for "S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval" (or "GLACIER_IR" for S3 Glacier Immediate Retrieval or "DEEP_ARCHIVE" for S3 Glacier Deep Archive). You can use the regular S3 APIs. We haven't seen any rate limiting on this approach.
The only difference from the "online" storage classes like STANDARD, STANDARD_IA, etc is that downloading an object with GLACIER/GLACIER_IR/DEEP_ARCHIVE storage class requires first making it downloadable by calling the S3 "restore" API on it, and then waiting until it's downloadable (1-5 minutes for GLACIER_IR, 3-5 hours for GLACIER, and 5-12 hours for DEEP_ARCHIVE).
It takes about 2 days to make a full backup, and I can fit incrementals for the next 5 days on the batch-of-7. Then I switch to the second magazine, and do the same thing. I actually have 3 magazines, one of which I swap in and out every week, and during the before-times, I'd take that off-site to work.
I have ~30 years of data, from back when I was in college and writing CD-ROMs for backup, all on the one system. Admittedly, the major space-taking thing is the Plex library, but I wouldn't want to lose that either. It takes about 5 minutes to walk into the garage (where the server-rack is), swap magazines and I'm done - the rest is automatic.
I have vague ideas for writing a more-efficient tar designed for this specific type of setup (big disk with attached tape). The best way to do it I think is to have multiple threads reading and bzip2-compressing data, piping blobs through to a singleton tape-writer thread. Every now and then (50GB, 500GB, 1TB ?) close the device and reopen the non-rewindable device to get a record-marker on the tape, and then store the tape/record-marker/byte-offset etc. into a SQLite database on the disk. That way I'd get:
- High levels of compression without making the tape head wait for the data, which ruins the tape head. Multiple threads pooling highly-compressed data into a "record"
- fast lookup of what is where, I'm thinking a SQL LIKE query syntax for search, against the disk-based DB. No more waiting for the record to page in from the end of the tape.
- fast find on-tape, since you'd know to just do the equivalent of 'mt fsf N' before you actually have to start reading data
Right now, tar is good enough. One of these days when I get time, I'll write 'bar' (Backup And Restore :)
I need a solution for backing up the stored states for my 100 trillion digit PI calculation efforts.
O_O
It's not noisy when writing to tape, but the mechanism is noisy when a tape is being loaded, the magazine is being shuffled to get the right tape, etc. It's the mechanical parts rather than the tape drive itself that's too loud, especially with Webex conferencing being a part of the day now.
So I have it set up in the garage, in the server-rack. I was worried about temperatures in the Summer, so I bought a 100W solar panel, an attic fan, and linked them up, positioning the fan above the rack. That fan shifts so much air that the in-rack fans (with temperature monitoring) didn't get above 85 all summer, which is pretty amazing for the Bay Area. The tape deck seems to be fine in that sort of temperature, and yes I do do the occasional 'tar tvf' to check the data is readable :)
I got an HP IP KVM switch a while ago. When it's on, it makes as much noise as a bunch of servers or a blade center. Got some fans for retrofit...
[1] https://www.backupworks.com/quantum-superloader-3-LTO.aspx
Particularly given you never address the commenter's point, which is that your pricing is pretty expensive?
"Price high, low volume" is certainly a valid pricing strategy, but you have no right to be snarky when people say you're priced high.
The fact that people are consistently describing you as overpried means your marketing really isn't showing the corresponding value to them.
I use a RAID 1 to handle drive failure and also keep local backups on a NAS. BB is my third layer of backup. I've never run into issues with BB backups so I'm happy for what I get for the price.
The question this thread seems to be raising is... do you? Do you really? Are you sure?
I have a ZFS based NAS. And periodically do a incremental backup (zfs send) of the entire dataset, encrypt it gpg and pipe it straight up to S3 deep archive. Works like a charm.
The catch with S3 deep archive is if you want to get the data back... It's reliable, but you will pay quite a bit more. So as a last resort backup, it's perfect.
Does it do incremental backup transfer to Glacier or does it have to transfer the entire encrypted blob every time?
sudo zfs send -i <LAST_BACKUPED_SNAPNAME> <CUR_SNAPNAME> | gpg -e -r <YOURKEY> --compress-algo none -v | pv | aws s3 cp --storage-class DEEP_ARCHIVE - s3://<PATH_TO_DEST>.zfs.gpg
The very first time you do it, you will need to do a full backup (ie. without the `-i <...>` option). Afterwards, subsequent backups can be done with the -i, so only the incremental difference will be backed up.I have a path/naming scheme for the .zfs.gpg files on s3 which include the snapshot from/to names. This allows to determine what the latest backed up snapshot name is (so the next one can be incremental against that). And also use when backing up, since the order or restore matters.
aws s3 cp s3://... - | gpg -d ... | zfs recv ...
When restoring the order of restores matters, you first need to restore the full snapshot, and then the subsequent incremental ones in order.I've only verified with a smaller test dataset to validate the workflow on s3 deep archive (retrieval is $0.02/GB). I've done full backup/restore with the zfs send/gpg/recv workflow successfully (to a non aws s3 destination), and used s3 for quite a long time for work and personal without issue, so personally I have high confidence in the entire workflow.
I'm not a big fan of backing-up a back-up and opted for a Time Machine backup to a local nas and in parallel, an off-site backup to B2 with Arq on my macs.
Currently I use it to back up my lossless music collection and nothing else.
Backblaze B2 was on the table too, however I think my asymetric internet connection is my biggest issue right now. Only 40-50Mbps upload won't do much for backing up multiple TBs of data. May need to consider pre-seeding drive option if I can justify the cost.
Other solution was a separate, lower spec Synology I can pre-seed and send to a friend's house who has a homelab.