TechnicalBackup

  

Press Ctrl+Enter to quickly submit your post
Quick Reply  
 
 
  
 From:  ANT_THOMAS   15 May 2017 18:49 
 To:  ALL 1 of 12 
41951.1 
I'm currently using CrashPlan as my method of backup on my home server.

It had been working great for a few years ticking away in the background, until recently when a software update meant it wasn't backing up and once I got past that it would constantly crash. Turns out it was /only/ allowed to access 1GB RAM, and I have been told to up that to 3GB because I have so many files, it now seems to be working again. Bloody Java for you I guess.

Whilst it wasn't working I was thinking about what I could use instead.

What's about these days?
How much does a shitload of remote storage cost? (does such a thing exist?)
Would a regular rsync to remote storage effectively do the same without using 3GB RAM?
Can this actually be done for less than the 60 USD CrashPlan charge?
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)   15 May 2017 22:59 
 To:  ANT_THOMAS      2 of 12 
41951.2 In reply to 41951.1 
It's not bloody Java, it's shit programmers - it doesn't take 1GB of RAM to copy files in any competently written software, and Java specifically has built-in support for dealing with files as streams to keep memory use down.

Rsync uses 100 bytes per file being copied, so to get it using a gig of RAM you'd need to be syncing ten million files.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  william (WILLIAMA)   15 May 2017 23:23 
 To:  ANT_THOMAS      3 of 12 
41951.3 In reply to 41951.1 
Does it have to be remote?

I keep files I care about on Owncloud, so there are 5 separate devices with regularly synced copies of everything - but all on my own disk space. Movies and music are on a single drive on a home server, but I simply back this up overnight to another drive using robocopy rather than anything clever. All my family PCs back up to the same drive (The windows devices just use file history) so they're all replicated at the same time as the movies etc.

 
never trust a man in a blue trench coat, never drive a car when you're dead
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)   16 May 2017 00:09 
 To:  william (WILLIAMA)      4 of 12 
41951.4 In reply to 41951.3 
it's not a back up if it's not offsite.
“Pot stinks, alcohol only stinks when you bring it up!”
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)   16 May 2017 00:16 
 To:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)      5 of 12 
41951.5 In reply to 41951.4 
It's not a fire/flood/nuke-proof backup if it's not offsite, but it's still considerably better than nothing at all.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  ANT_THOMAS   16 May 2017 07:50 
 To:  william (WILLIAMA)      6 of 12 
41951.6 In reply to 41951.3 
I'm going to say yes, because it more easily protects against drive failure without needing more hard drives. I'm backing up around 2TB from my server.

CrashPlan also does unlimited revision backup and long lasting deleted files. Not that that is massively useful, but I do nightly full image backups of some of my important RPis, locally I store 7 days worth, but CrashPlan must have months/years of these now I could recover. An absolute waste of space, but it's unlimited so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  ANT_THOMAS   16 May 2017 07:52 
 To:  william (WILLIAMA)      7 of 12 
41951.7 In reply to 41951.3 
It also means that I've not had to pull my finger out and organise my storage, which I desperately need to. I've just pointed the software at loads of folders and left it to it.

I decided against backing up TV and Movies. But definitely music.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  william (WILLIAMA)   16 May 2017 08:05 
 To:  ANT_THOMAS      8 of 12 
41951.8 In reply to 41951.6 
My total backup is around 2TB as well. I suppose you should go with what suits you.

@DSMITHFX I forgot to mention that my backup drive is at my DR site.
never trust a man in a blue trench coat, never drive a car when you're dead
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  ANT_THOMAS   16 May 2017 08:24 
 To:  william (WILLIAMA)      9 of 12 
41951.9 In reply to 41951.8 
I think I'll look at what you've said, because local backups are obviously significantly quicker to restore. Maybe for absolute essentials. I used to backup locally, but rather than having a backup drive, as such, I backed up bits across various other drives.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)   16 May 2017 15:30 
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)      10 of 12 
41951.10 In reply to 41951.5 
True. I've had to recover from many a dead hdd, no fires/floods/nukes thus far (though I can see nukes from my balcony and we get plenty o' floods, none have reached the 13th floor, thus far).
“Pot stinks, alcohol only stinks when you bring it up!”
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Harry (HARRYN)   18 May 2017 11:22 
 To:  ALL 11 of 12 
41951.11 
We use carbonite for most stuff for windows computers.  I still need to do something off site for linux mint ones.

I have considered renting a bank box and putting a monthly back up in there.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  gracia (GRACEINC)   7 Jun 2017 09:58 
 To:  Harry (HARRYN)      12 of 12 
41951.12 In reply to 41951.11 
What is the best back up service to keep documents. 
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

Reply to All    
 

1–12

Rate my interest:

Adjust text size : Smaller 10 Larger

Beehive Forum 1.5.2 |  FAQ |  Docs |  Support |  Donate! ©2002 - 2024 Project Beehive Forum

Forum Stats