It depends on your needs. How much do you value your data? Can you re-create / re-download it in case of a disk failure?
In some case, like a typical home users with a few writes per day or even week simply having a second disk that is updated every day with rsync may be a better choice. Consider that if you’re two mechanical disks spinning 24h7 they’ll most likely fail at the same time (or during a RAID rebuild) and you’ll end up loosing all your data. Simply having one active disk (shared on the network and spinning) and the other spun down and only turned on once a day with a cron rsync job mean your second disk will last a LOT longer and you’ll be safer.
So many people didn’t read the post and going off how raid isn’t backup.
There are a few things to consider. How much data is it? How is it connected? How reliable do you want it to be? Where is it going to be? How are you backing it up? How will you monitor the disk(s) and backup process for failures?
Is it at some place that will be a pain to deal with if a hard drive dies, like a friend’s house or something. I’d deal with raid so it wouldn’t be an immediate reason to go fix it or go without backups.
Is it small enough amounts of data that you could have a complete third copy if you didn’t put the disks in raid? Then I’d probably make multiple copies and not use raid.
Are you dealing with something like veeam doing backup chains? Having an initial copy and then incremental with changes where you can go back to different days? Go with raid because having to reconfigure can be a hassle or having a full and incremental across jbods could cost you all the backups if the disk with the full backup is lost.
Either or is a valid choice and depends on your particular needs.
As others said, depends on your use case. There are lots of good discussions here about mirroring vs single disks, different vendors, etc. Some backup systems may want you to have a large filesystem available that would not be otherwise attainable without a RAID 5/6.
Enterprise backups tend to fall along the recommendation called 3-2-1:
3 copies of the data, of which
2 are backups, and
1 is off-site (and preferably offline)
On my home system, I have 3-2-0 for most data and 4-3-0 for my most important virtual machines. My home system doesn’t have an off-site, but I do have two external hard drives connected to my NAS.
All devices are backed up to the NAS for fast recovery access between 1w and 24h RPO
The NAS backs up various parts of itself to the external hard drives every 24h
Data is split up by role and convenience factor - just putting stuff together like Tetris pieces, spreading out the NAS between the two drives
The most critical data for me to have first during a recovery is backed up to BOTH external disks
Coincidentally, both drives happen to be from different vendors, but I didn’t initially plan it that way, the Seagate drive was a gift and the WD drive was on sale
Story time
I had one of my two backup drives fail a few months ago. Literally actually nothing of value was lost, just went down to the electronics shop and bought a bigger drive from the same vendor (preserving the one on each vendor approach). Reformatted the disk, recreated the backup job, then ran the first transfer. Pretty much not a big deal, all the data was still in 2 other places - the source itself, and the NAS primary array.
The most important thing to determine about a backup when you plan one - think about how much the data is valuable to you. That’s how much you might be willing to spend on keeping that data safe.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !selfhosted@lemmy.world
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don’t control.
Rules:
Be civil: we’re here to support and learn from one another. Insults won’t be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it’s not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don’t duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.
Resources:
selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
I would go with raid on the backup system too. you don’t want all your backups disappearing because one drive fails.
Any storage shut be raid or a form their of in a ideal world. The storage where backups are stored a defiantly yes raid shut be a very high priority.
It depends on your needs. How much do you value your data? Can you re-create / re-download it in case of a disk failure?
In some case, like a typical home users with a few writes per day or even week simply having a second disk that is updated every day with rsync may be a better choice. Consider that if you’re two mechanical disks spinning 24h7 they’ll most likely fail at the same time (or during a RAID rebuild) and you’ll end up loosing all your data. Simply having one active disk (shared on the network and spinning) and the other spun down and only turned on once a day with a cron rsync job mean your second disk will last a LOT longer and you’ll be safer.
Snapraid to a single drive works well if you are fine with daily snapshots of up to 6 drives.
So many people didn’t read the post and going off how raid isn’t backup.
There are a few things to consider. How much data is it? How is it connected? How reliable do you want it to be? Where is it going to be? How are you backing it up? How will you monitor the disk(s) and backup process for failures?
Is it at some place that will be a pain to deal with if a hard drive dies, like a friend’s house or something. I’d deal with raid so it wouldn’t be an immediate reason to go fix it or go without backups.
Is it small enough amounts of data that you could have a complete third copy if you didn’t put the disks in raid? Then I’d probably make multiple copies and not use raid.
Are you dealing with something like veeam doing backup chains? Having an initial copy and then incremental with changes where you can go back to different days? Go with raid because having to reconfigure can be a hassle or having a full and incremental across jbods could cost you all the backups if the disk with the full backup is lost.
Either or is a valid choice and depends on your particular needs.
As others said, depends on your use case. There are lots of good discussions here about mirroring vs single disks, different vendors, etc. Some backup systems may want you to have a large filesystem available that would not be otherwise attainable without a RAID 5/6.
Enterprise backups tend to fall along the recommendation called 3-2-1:
On my home system, I have 3-2-0 for most data and 4-3-0 for my most important virtual machines. My home system doesn’t have an off-site, but I do have two external hard drives connected to my NAS.
Story time
I had one of my two backup drives fail a few months ago. Literally actually nothing of value was lost, just went down to the electronics shop and bought a bigger drive from the same vendor (preserving the one on each vendor approach). Reformatted the disk, recreated the backup job, then ran the first transfer. Pretty much not a big deal, all the data was still in 2 other places - the source itself, and the NAS primary array.
The most important thing to determine about a backup when you plan one - think about how much the data is valuable to you. That’s how much you might be willing to spend on keeping that data safe.