Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Thoughts about Backups

NAS things always seem to get suggested in these kinds of discussions!

But I remain unclear exactly what the benefit is... unless you are running some kind of network where a bunch of different computers want to access the same files.

Whenever I look into it, it just seems like another thing to worry about whether it's going to be compatible with this or that...

Also, for mac users, Time machine is such an easy to use backup method, that I have stuck to using it and I don't think it'll work on a NAS server.

Just plugging in a disk via USB is appealingly fuss-free and with NAS servers it seems like there's a danger of over-thinking things if your use case doesn't actually justify it.
 
NAS is defiently a 'what do I want to use it for' question before you dive in. Serving files to multiple devices is the obvious starter for ten, if you have no reason for that, then yes, it's probably overkill.

Most will support Time Machine out the box, and you just set it up, and forget about it. It just does the backups for you, to the schedule you tell it to.

My project initally was File Storage to play movies on Kodi on my big screen TV with an always on torrent client, that wasn't as power hungry as a desktop PC.

Over time (and an upgrade from the initial one) it's turned into my hub for data and entertainment and as much as possible is automated.

It's a web server for testing web dev stuff, it automatically backs up my personal data to the cloud, runs docker with a ton of containers (plex, jackett, Transmission, radarr, lidarr, sonarr, soulseek and a Firefox browser that all run though VPN) provides easy access to my files from any device from anywhere, is just one device to back up, so saves me effort and time, has been connected to VPNs, has been a VPN Server for access to my Local LAN (no longer does that as my ASUS router now does that bit) a wake on lan portal for my jump box when I needed to use a full phat Windows client based on my local LAN from remote.

I've had 2 over the past 10 years, the first one ended up being underpowered as I realised I could do more and more with it, so upgraded to a 2 bay small business class one, and has two mirrored 5TB drives. One of the best gadgets I've ever bought and couldn't live without one now. It's essentially the central hub for all my data and entertainment. And once you have things like Plex/Sonarr/Radarr etc all set up perfectly and working nice you just forget about it and let it go about it's business.

Don't get me wrong the initial outlay is expensive, the setup can be complicated and probably shouldn't be attempted by anyone without a little bit of IT knowleedge, you need to security patch especially if you have open ports through your firewall to it, and well yeah, it takes a long time to setup perfectly with lots of trial and error, especially if not using the out the box solutions provided by the vendor, which tend to be a bit limited. Although the out the box backup tools are very good.

Like the majority of hardcore downloaders, when I could go to the cinema, I go loads, my DVD/Blu-Ray/4K disc collection is large, and I sub to Amazon Prime/Netflix/Apple TV+/Apple Music, so while stuff is still obtained perhaps not so legally, the stuff i enjoy either gets watched on its correct platform if it's available (Unless it's on Sky basically, fuck you Murdoch) As I can just tell Sonarr, oh that film looks good, grab it when it's available..... I'll forget about it, until it automatically grabs it, and then I go 'oh yeah, i wanted to watch that, music gets streamed legally unless I want to specially shuffle certain types of music which the online services seem to be shit at, so I then do it via plex as I know it's only going to play music I love then!
 
sounds cool Cybershot - and well beyond my abilities (or time to get my abilities up to scratch) - I'll do it when I'm retired.

Back to my earlier question
Is there any merit on connecting a basic external HDD with Thunderbolts / USB4 or whatever, or is it all just marketing and I should go with the £160 Wd Elements usb 3.0 10TB drive up thread ? (10tb is huge for me, but essentially the same price as 8tb)
 
It's speed, but your devices need to support them too. You'd be future proofing yourself if nothing else. Obviously the more data you need to backup the quicker it will do it.
 
Thanks.
But isn’t the write speed of the drive the constraint , rather than the connection ? ( would be good to be able to use the port speed of the m1 Mac, if it does actually make a difference)
I’m sort of thinking about a big blockage of data , having been shunted down a cable at 20gbs then sitting around twiddling it’s thumbs whilst the platter gets round to writing it down
 
Thanks.
But isn’t the write speed of the drive the constraint , rather than the connection ? ( would be good to be able to use the port speed of the m1 Mac, if it does actually make a difference)
I’m sort of thinking about a big blockage of data , having been shunted down a cable at 20gbs then sitting around twiddling it’s thumbs whilst the platter gets round to writing it down

Yes. I'd have thought that you don't need any faster then USB 3 for a conventional hard drive. Even 3.0 does 5Gbs is quicker then a 7200rpm drive.
 
sounds cool Cybershot - and well beyond my abilities (or time to get my abilities up to scratch) - I'll do it when I'm retired.

Back to my earlier question
Is there any merit on connecting a basic external HDD with Thunderbolts / USB4 or whatever, or is it all just marketing and I should go with the £160 Wd Elements usb 3.0 10TB drive up thread ? (10tb is huge for me, but essentially the same price as 8tb)

It doesn't sound like you need any of this at the moment, but when I did it a number of years ago I ended up installing windows. Yes it's a not a very resource efficient way of doing it, but was very easy to set up with my skills at the time.
 
Thanks.
But isn’t the write speed of the drive the constraint , rather than the connection ? ( would be good to be able to use the port speed of the m1 Mac, if it does actually make a difference)
I’m sort of thinking about a big blockage of data , having been shunted down a cable at 20gbs then sitting around twiddling it’s thumbs whilst the platter gets round to writing it down

Not only that, it depends on the type of files and their size. Tons of smaller files will take longer to copy than a few large files! Why Small Files Take Longer to Copy Than Large Files - Dataquest
 
That is what I’m wondering. If cable was the constraint then wouldn’t usb3.0 back up 2tb in 7 minutes ? (3000/5/60). And thunderbolt would be 4 times faster or something.
I’d be happy with a full backup in 7 minutes. But suspect it doesn’t happen
 
Gawd. Nothing is simple is it.
I’m stilling leaning on the non scientific belief that thunderbolt is pointless for an external hdd. No one has contradicted that yet I think

I can see the point for an SSD, but not for backing up large amounts of data.
 
Gawd. Nothing is simple is it.
I’m stilling leaning on the non scientific belief that thunderbolt is pointless for an external hdd. No one has contradicted that yet I think
I think you're right.
I started looking at fast external SSD drives recently, but that's mainly because I got a new M1 mac with quite a small internal drive and I wanted to supplement that with something fast that I could use as if it were the internal drive and possibly run apps from.
But I got the impression it's easy to go overkill and I think it is when it's just for a general storage external drive.
For what it's worth, sounds like you are in a similar type of position to me, and I tend just to use this type of thing, the bog standard external drives you can get in Argos or Currys and lots of other places. I have a couple of 5TB ones at the moment.
 
I am just going to buy an external USB disk drive and back up to that. It has to be a step forward from having no backups at all. I don't really worry about how long a backup might take because I assume I can leave that running in the background as I am doing other things.

Ideally there would be a method of just updating files that have changed, I don't know.

I don't know what version my USB ports are but copying images from my camera's memory cards I only get 15mb/s which I discovered last week is quite a lot more than my work laptop can manage, I found this odd because it is a much faster processor and has more RAM than my older desktop.
 
I am just going to buy an external USB disk drive and back up to that. It has to be a step forward from having no backups at all. I don't really worry about how long a backup might take because I assume I can leave that running in the background as I am doing other things.

Ideally there would be a method of just updating files that have changed, I don't know.

I don't know what version my USB ports are but copying images from my camera's memory cards I only get 15mb/s which I discovered last week is quite a lot more than my work laptop can manage, I found this odd because it is a much faster processor and has more RAM than my older desktop.

you can get software which will sync the folders, so if nothing has changed in majority of them it won’t bother copying them again, just what’s different.
 
I actually don't bother with non-cloud backup any more. I have Backblaze doing my whole drive and also everything valuable is stored/mirrored in iCloud or Dropbox or github anyway. The point of local physical backups seems to me to be speed of access to it - it's in no way more secure - and I have never needed that in my entire life.
 
I just have my important stuff backing up to Google drive. Can't see the point of a NAS or other local backup really. Maybe when I used to download a lot it would have been useful to have had a media server locally but I stream everything now.

My only issue is that I keep using all the free data on Google drive - I then have to archive some stuff to another free cloud backup (Mega) and it's a bit of a pain. Am really unwilling to pay Google anything though. Have been exploring alternatives like Nextcloud which you can run on your own server and looks very good, but unsure if it's overkill for my needs.
 
I just have my important stuff backing up to Google drive. Can't see the point of a NAS or other local backup really. Maybe when I used to download a lot it would have been useful to have had a media server locally but I stream everything now.

My only issue is that I keep using all the free data on Google drive - I then have to archive some stuff to another free cloud backup (Mega) and it's a bit of a pain. Am really unwilling to pay Google anything though. Have been exploring alternatives like Nextcloud which you can run on your own server and looks very good, but unsure if it's overkill for my needs.

If you don't want to pay Google why not pay someone else. Dropbox or Microsoft come to mind, but there are plenty of others.
 
I'd be nervous to have my backup purely in the cloud - if the storage company, the internet or society in general were to collapse, it would be gone. I'm not sure if stuff being held on servers in another country is a plus or minus point.
In any case I reckon if I were to go cloud only, I'd want it with two different companies in two different locations.
 
I'd be nervous to have my backup purely in the cloud - if the storage company, the internet or society in general were to collapse, it would be gone. I'm not sure if stuff being held on servers in another country is a plus or minus point.
In any case I reckon if I were to go cloud only, I'd want it with two different companies in two different locations.
I reckon the chances of one of the big providers losing data must be pretty slim, they must be backed up to the hilt or their business would be ruined overnight. I trust Google to look after my data (albeit abusively, privacy wise) more than I do myself.

And in any case, really, it wouldn't matter to me that much if I lost the lot. Would be a pain losing work files I might need again but I'd cope.
 
I think I've decided that as part of my strategy I'd like to have long term "archived" stuff on a local disk and also on the cloud. I don't want this to be incrementally backed up or even automatically synced. I'll maybe only change it once a year when I add some folders to it. The changes can be done manually.

So I want to find some cheap basic online storage. Maybe about 2TB. It doesn't have to come with any kind of backup or syncing system or software. I don't want another app on my computer running in the background. I just want a location I can upload stuff to, in a basic file structure, and it'll still be there in a year or five years or ten.

Does such a thing exist?
 
I think I've decided that as part of my strategy I'd like to have long term "archived" stuff on a local disk and also on the cloud. I don't want this to be incrementally backed up or even automatically synced. I'll maybe only change it once a year when I add some folders to it. The changes can be done manually.

So I want to find some cheap basic online storage. Maybe about 2TB.

Does such a thing exist?

No, and anything cheap is likely to vanish meaning you go round in circles re uploading the data.

you’re safest bet is Amazon AWS or Microsoft Azure storage most likely. I doubt either are cheap for 2TB. Although you can get archive storage on azure cheap but honestly not sure how it works.


Although hoping urban and its wealth of knowledge can prove me wrong and there is something cheap AND reliable.
 
you’re safest bet is Amazon AWS or Microsoft Azure storage most likely. I doubt either are cheap for 2TB.
I did have a look.
AWS S3 Glacier Deep storage - the cheapest - which is designed for backups so slow access times when you want it back, 2TB will cost about $4 per month. Bargain!
Until you want to retrieve it.
2TB retrieval in one month? $185.
About the same price as 3 x 2TB hard drives.

There are additional costs for index meta data and put/list transactions but these are relatively small unless you’re storing lots of very small files.

Maybe I messed up the calculations, but AWS are notorious for getting you on the data retrieval costs.
 
I don't really get why these options are as expensive/more expensive than regular continual access type service like Dropbox, Google drive, iCloud etc. They all have 2TB for something like £7 a month. And there is this which will give you 5 years for £100.

I was thinking that something that just let you place an archive on a server would be less expensive, because it wouldn't be offering all that additional stuff to sync things.
 
I did have a look.
AWS S3 Glacier Deep storage - the cheapest - which is designed for backups so slow access times when you want it back, 2TB will cost about $4 per month. Bargain!
Until you want to retrieve it.
2TB retrieval in one month? $185.
About the same price as 3 x 2TB hard drives.

There are additional costs for index meta data and put/list transactions but these are relatively small unless you’re storing lots of very small files.

Maybe I messed up the calculations, but AWS are notorious for getting you on the data retrieval costs.
Are you likely to retrieve all the data in one go?
 
Back
Top Bottom