Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Online Backup Solutions?

Posted by Cliff on from the just-so-long-as-you-back-up dept.

OmnipotentEntity asks: "I'm an IT Manager (and also a lifeguard, don't ask) for a small private club. Recently parts of our server's RAID went bad just as Hurricane Dennis hit, making life a living hell for me and everyone involved. So, I figured perhaps backing up information online would make stuff like this less incredibly painful. A quick browse of Google will show that there are a lot of businesses offering automatic, offsite, online backup solutions. It seems it's becoming a big thing. The largest problem is that they all look alike -- same implementation, similar websites, it looks like someone came through this part of the Internet with a cookie cutter, and by the information available on the website and pricing (which may or may not be available without filling out 100 forms) I can't tell a good company from bad company. I've never had any experience with any of these companies, and I wanted to know if any of you guys had, and if so what were your experiences with them? What are the things to look for? What are the things to avoid? Am I barking up the wrong tree?"

66 of 422 comments (clear)

  1. Backups online by Hansele · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Be really careful with this. What happens if the provider gets hacked?

    1. Re:Backups online by Fjornir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's this really, really neat thing called 'encryption' you might want to look into.

      --
      I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
    2. Re:Backups online by ReverendHoss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Compare with the probability of the locally stored data being hacked.

      A reputable company should have better network security than "a small, private club". With some due-dillegence in checking out the company (beyond "Ask Slashdot"), the threat of hacking shouldn't be a reason to avoid online-backups altogether.

    3. Re:Backups online by skalcevich · · Score: 3, Informative

      I use external USB hard drives with 400GB storage per drive. Swap drives at locations weekly with a spair set. Fast no reaccuring costs and does the job. Tapes are too slow, online is too slow / cost can be a lot for a lot of data.

      --
      Regards, Steven Kalcevich
    4. Re:Backups online by avronius · · Score: 2, Informative

      If the time required to restore ALL of your data using 10% of your currently available bandwidth exceeds the amount of time to drive in a copy of your data from the next city/town/state, a physical backup solution remains your best option.

      if ($timeToMoveDataOverWire * 10) > ($timeToShipDataOverLand) {use removable backup media}

      I use 10% as a number, as if there is a weather related reason that your business is offline, there is a good chance that other businesses in the area are suffering from the same problem, and may be attempting to use the same method for data recovery at the same time. You might reduce that number further depending on QoS issues, etc.

      Be it LTO, DVD/RW, or scribbling bits onto pieces of ivory, there is a greater chance of recovering your data in a reasonable amount of time, when using local removable media.

      You must, however, be diligent in retaining a COMPLETE copy of your data off-site. It only takes one week of lollygagging to cause you to lose two weeks (or more) of data.

    5. Re:Backups online by Kevin+DeGraaf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      unless there's some contract guarenteeing the integrety of the data, storing stuff with a third party is just as stupid as not doing any kind of backup.

      Bzzt, wrong. Dunno why I'm responding to some A.C...

      Zip or tar/gzip/bzip2 your files. Encrypt with GPG. Take MD5 checksum. Upload to backup company.

      If your disk crashes, there is a nonzero and generally pretty decent chance that you will get your data back. You can use your MD5 checksum to verify bit-for-bit integrity.

      Contrast that with the 0% chance you have of recovering your data from a nonexistent backup target. "Just as stupid"? As if.

      --
      We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.
    6. Re:Backups online by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 4, Funny

      2gB is plenty of space

      I can just imagine the look on people's faces when the article submitter, an IT Manager, goes to the staff and suggests gmail as a solution.

      Some of us have these things called a J O B. At most jobs, 2GB is NOT enough space to backup all the core systems.

      And again, what if the provider gets cracked?

      I think I understand why you think 2GB is "plenty" of space.

      --
      94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
    7. Re:Backups online by lbates_35476 · · Score: 4, Informative

      We use Websafe (http://www.websafe.com/). https:/// SSL encryption while on Net and AES-256 while at rest (I have the clear-text encryption master key in my possesion). Also supports WebDAV webfolders via WebDrive service (http://www.webdrive.com/). Comes with free ZBKUP utility that zips data BEFORE it is transmitted and can be scheduled to do lights-out backups unattended via webfolders or you can use any D2D backup you like. Depending on your Internet upload performance you can easily upload gigabyte (compressed) backups during the night. No firewall issues because it only uses https:/// port 443. Cluster of Linux/64 servers power the service. Each storage disk is on separate controller and is mirrored. Backups are maintainted with a grandfather, father, son rotation (nightly) as well. Supports browser access and sharing of individual folders with other WebSafe users. Not the cheapest, but the combination of encryption, collaboration, and ease of use are unmatched.

    8. Re:Backups online by Tekzel · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I use external USB hard drives with 400GB storage per drive. Swap drives at locations weekly with a spair set. Fast no reaccuring costs and does the job. Tapes are too slow, online is too slow / cost can be a lot for a lot of data.


      I just have to ask. How is this post off topic? Sure, it isn't about online backups specifically, but it is a very reasonable alternative TO online backups.

      Some people and their children.
    9. Re:Backups online by Sun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, it does not.

      http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html

      You hack one server. One copy of the data gets corrupted. Second copy, however, is on a server that can only initiate outgoing connections. You cannot hack that one from outside. By the time the data gets synced, the hash proves to be wrong, and we know we were hacked. Restore from good backup, and we're done.

      Shachar

    10. Re:Backups online by Sun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Our solution:
      We use a new symmetric key for each file. The symmetric key is stored in the encrypted file, encrypted using a public key. All you, as a backup client, have to do is to store that one private key in a safe place.

      We went one step further. We use an encryption mechanism we developed to make sure the encryption works well with rsync.

      Knowing the /. crowed, your next question is "do you expect me to trust an encryption method you developed?". Good question.

      No, that's why we are still using AES, and have somewhat modified CBC. If you want to test what we've done, feel free to download the program. We've open sourced it. http://sourceforge.net/projects/rsyncrypto.

      Shachar

  2. usdatatrust.com by alex323 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've always had good experiences with usdatatrust.com. WHat I like about them is that they backup your data as it changes. I find that to be extremely useful.

  3. Offsite Co-op? by kwerle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm curious to know if there is any kind of off-site co-op. You know - you store my data, and I'll store someone's. Encrypted, blah blah blah.

    Call me a commie - but why not?

    1. Re:Offsite Co-op? by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Agreed. Online data storage is hideously expensive. A coalition of businesses and/or individuals doing a shared backup strategy via a bittorrent-like protocol would be far more effective at preventing data loss, for far less overall cost to everyone.

      Of course, that sort of mechanism doesn't help if your purpose is to use backups for historical data retention, but then again, if that's your goal, online backup doesn't make sense anyway.

      What would be nice would be for this sort of mechanism to be sufficiently simple that an idiot can understand it. You specify the number of unique copies (n) of your data based on how much you care about it. In exchange, you agree to store 2n times as many gigs of information for other people on your drives. That space is reserved in advance at upload time, and freed when you tell the software that the backup of that data is no longer needed.

      To prevent abuse, laptops would not be allowed to participate, as the availability of data backed up on someone's laptop is dubious at best. Machines participating must have either a static IP or dynamic DNS (or, ideally, the software could automatically register some sort of free dyndns type name for you).

      During the first 72 hours prior to the backup, the machine must respond to at least 75% of hourly requests for confirmation from other machines that have copies of its data. If it does not, it will be assumed to be a laptop and the data stored will be disposed of after 72 hours as space is needed. This means that you can use it if your machine is dying as a temporary backup mechanism, since the data won't go away immediately, but at the same time, will effectively prevent abusing the system by using it to backup people's laptops.

      After 72 hours, the confirmation rate will decrease to once per day. A host that has been gone for more than two weeks will be assumed to have been abandoned. However, there should be a mechanism for making one machine double as a stand-in for a dead machine for an arbitrary period of time, so long as it provides enough storage to meet the original machine's obligations.

      In addition to confirmation requests from the copyholder, the machine with the original data should attempt (daily) to contact each copyholder to verify that bidirectional connections are possible, thus ensuring that if the data needs to be recovered, it can be.

      Obviously, since all data would be encrypted, the encyption key would be stored in a file on system being backed up. This means that you MUST back up if you ever want to recover your data....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Offsite Co-op? by warkda+rrior · · Score: 2, Informative
      Any decent cmopressor, or encryption approach *will* wind up quite different from the point of a byte change[...]
      Only in chained-block mode. You can probably have the chain be reset at rsync-block boundaries, while theoretically losing some of the security guarantees of the CBC mode.
      --
      You need to install an RTFM interface.
    3. Re:Offsite Co-op? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      See BoxBackup http://www.fluffy.co.uk/boxbackup/

    4. Re:Offsite Co-op? by skraps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oceanstore is exactly what you described. From the website:
      "OceanStore is a global persistent data store designed to scale to billions of users. It provides a consistent, highly-available, and durable storage utility atop an infrastructure comprised of untrusted servers."
      --
      Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
    5. Re:Offsite Co-op? by Jim+McCoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How does this sound?

      You store my data, I will store yours.

      Error-corrected and replicated so that 50% of the cloud could disappear and you would still have 4 or 5 nines of reliability.

      Per-file, content-dependant encryption (e.g. every file gets its own AES encryption key)

      Free accounts have a 10:1 provided vs. consumed ratio (to cover replication and error-correction bloat, with the ratio expected to drop over time) and people who want to buy a better ratio or even not have to provide space can do so.

      Access to data backed-up by any of your systems from any other system you have installed the software on. (No more need to fiddle with system-to-system sync to make sure you have access to all of your files.)

      Sound interesting? If so, head over to Allmydata and sign up for the beta test. [Windows only at the moment, but OS X and Linux versions will be available in a couple of months...]

    6. Re:Offsite Co-op? by decep · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean like DIBS? http://www.csu.berkeley.edu/~emin/source_code/dibs /index.html

    7. Re:Offsite Co-op? by mtutty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm working on this problem, too. And I'm looking for a few dozen testers for version 0.2. Please go and sign up if you're in the mood.

      I might get flamed for saying this out loud, but from the testing I've done and the thought process that led to my project, I don't see a huge value in dividing up files if they're encrypted. First of all, you need more than one successful retrieval to get the file. Second, you're likely going to lose much of the economy of breaking the file up because you're adding the bloat of encryption to each copy.

      Looking around, I see that there are lots of other solutions to this problem. Consider mine if you want to help me bootstrap this into something really great.

    8. Re:Offsite Co-op? by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Periodic queries are sufficient if you do it right. If instead of two copies, you have... say five or ten, the probability of inaccessibility drops substantially. Query at most once per hour.

      The traffic should be minimized through the use of what I would call "data affinity". Data from a given source should naturally tend to congregate on the same servers as other data from a given source. This, coupled with internal data checksumming on each host, means that the number of messages should be relatively small even for large amounts of stored data.

      It would amount to "verify integrity of all content for host foo.bar.org", followed by a response packet: "x bytes of data, checksum 0x483957483028abcd, no bad chunks detected". When something goes wrong with a chunk, it would have a chunk list attached, and the original server would send replacements for those chunks.

      If, during the normal course of operations, a chunk of data didn't checksum correctly, the server would randomly request it from its neighbors and/or the source until it found somebody who was still out there. Each data server should be able to checksum itself fairly easily.

      IMHO, the only reasons for periodic queries are A. to make sure a host hasn't gone down permanently (and haning several copies means that it should be safe for detection of this condition to occur over several hours rather than minutes) and B. to prevent laptop users from putting their data out on the network and then going away without contributing back to the community by providing shared storage for everyone else.

      Now there is the problem of data integrity if a new copy of data is written out to the distributed filesystem while some copies are not online. Thus, each chunk should be versioned. If a new copy of a chunk is written while a copyserver is offline, the other copyservers should tag this fact, make a new clone of the new data, and periodically try to contact it over a period of time to inform it that the data is no longer needed. After a period of time (say, two weeks), they should give up and clone any additional data that was shared with that copyserver.

      Similarly, if a copyserver is brought back online after a crash, it should try to contact the other copyservers and the masterserver and ask if any of its data is still relevant. It should do this periodically, with some eventual timeout (say, two weeks).

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  4. great solution by rnd() · · Score: 4, Informative

    this is a great solution...

    --

    Amazing magic tricks

    1. Re:great solution by dancedance · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While the data does travel over an Internet connection, it is securely wrapped in an impenetrable 448-bit encrypted envelope to prevent any chance of unauthorized access.

      When companies make claims like "impenetrable encryption" on their front page, it makes me a little bit worried. When they say "448-bit" encryption, it makes me a bit more worried. When that information is the only thing on their site about what type of security/encryption they are using, I don't think I would ever trust my data with them.

    2. Re:great solution by dlmarti · · Score: 2

      Great solution if you have way too much money.
      Who is going to pay $20/month to store one CD worth of data.

      Really, if we are talking about less that 200G just use a removable drive and a saftey deposit box.

      What I really need is a backup for my 3T array. Find that and I might consider a couple hundred a month.

  5. Use gmail. by Garridan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Gmail gives you 2.42 gigs of storage, and growing! Never delete anything!

    1. Re:Use gmail. by TrippTDF · · Score: 2, Funny

      Damnit, Larry Page! Stop with the Gurilla Marketing!

    2. Re:Use gmail. by ForumTroll · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering most hard drives sold today are in the 120GB-160GB range I don't think everything is going to fit into 2.42 gigs of storage. Furthermore, you have to break that up into small pieces in separate emails if you want to do this via Gmail. People with large backup files are not going to want to saturate their upload bandwidth in order to perform backups using Gmail, not to mention once it gets over 2.42 GB of storage you would need to span across multiple accounts. This may work for a very small subset of users but it's not a good solution for most people and better services are available.

      On another note, I imagine Gmail wouldn't be too happy too if all of a sudden everyone had 15 accounts all filled up to the maximum capacity because they were just storing their weekly backups there. The reason they can give so much space is because the vast majority of users don't use 1/100th of that amount of space. Also, deleting a large number of emails becomes a real slow process on Gmail. This would always happen as you're backups need to be divided into small files in order to work with Gmail. For example one backup could be spread out through 30 different emails. They really need some kind of mass delete option or delete by query. Maybe, I'm missing these options if so someone please mention it.

      --
      "A Lisp programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing." - Alan Perlis
    3. Re:Use gmail. by mshmgi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Great idea ... now all I have to do is open up about 473 gmail accounts.

  6. A lifeguard!? by paulproteus · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm curious - what is it like being a lifeguard *and* an IT manager? Does the pay compare?

    --
    |/usr/games/fortune
    1. Re:A lifeguard!? by Lev13than · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm curious - what is it like being a lifeguard *and* an IT manager?

      In many ways the jobs are quite similar. Both involve multiple safeguards against the spread of viruses, both deal with sharing limited resources against hundreds of thankless clients, and no matter how pristine you keep either work environment there's always going to be some kid that ruins it by filling your storage solution with shit.

      --
      When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
    2. Re:A lifeguard!? by grammar+fascist · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm curious - what is it like being a lifeguard *and* an IT manager?

      I'd guess that every once in a while, he gets confused and tries to give a server mouth-to-mouth or reboot a drowned swimmer.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    3. Re:A lifeguard!? by grammar+fascist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What part of "don't ask" is beyond you?

      It's a hidden invitation to ask, Mr. Literal. There's no other reason for it to be there, because it's never referenced.

      I lifeguarded and know that lifeguards make from minimum wage starting at a Red Cross facility to ~15/hr as head guard. Find yourself an IT manager and your mystery is solved.

      Mod parent down, offtopic.

      Who peed in your Corn Flakes this morning?

      Did you do it yourself?

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    4. Re:A lifeguard!? by sammy+baby · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was working part time as a lifeguard not long after Baywatch debuted.

      My manager was flipping channels in the break room one day, and happened to stumble across the opening credits. He turned to me with a look of awe and said, "Have you seen this? They're making lifeguards now with their own flotation devices."

    5. Re:A lifeguard!? by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm curious - what is it like being a lifeguard *and* an IT manager?

      Have you ever caught anyone peeing in the server room?

  7. I use Data Deposit Box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The best I've found so far is DataDepositBox.com. Continous back up for 1c/meg/day. Secure website, download files from it, yadda yadda. Just like every other service I guess.

    In my experience, they had good customer service, a good data center, strong software, and easy set up. Easy set up was important for lazy folks likeme. I tried to do my own offsite storate with a DVDR and safety deposit box. Didn't work so well.

    I run it on two file servers (one for my home and one for my dedicated hosting server) as a service. I back up about 3G of my stuff and pay like $18/month. Hard to beat that. Couldn't find other places that were in that price range.

  8. Do it the old fashioned way by rerunn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Create backups, then take them home with you if possible. Doing online backups leaves you at the mercy of the provider.

  9. Storage Size? by Conception · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think online backups won't be the future for anyone. If you have a 400GB raid, and you want to back that up, we're talking a lot of time and a lot of bandwidth to transfer that to the online storage. Tape afaik is still the best way to archive data.

  10. IronMountain by pgp4privacy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Although pricey, IronMountain offers excellent service in this backup genre.

    http://www.ironmountain.com/Index.asp

    I highly recommend them if you can afford it.

    Aside from that, if you are a smaller shop hit up freshmeat/sourceforge for projects like Bacula and BackupPC...they work well for smaller installs.

  11. You said don't ask... by BaudKarma · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...but I gotta.

    IT Managers get zero chicks. Lifeguards get tons of chicks. What happens when then two are combined in the same person?

    (unless of course, you are a chick yourself, in which case I apologize for my blatantly sexist remarks)

    --
    It's the land of the brave, and the home of the free
    Where the less you know, the better off you'll be.
    1. Re:You said don't ask... by fdiskne1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      A half ton of chicks? How about just one half ton chick?

      ...ok...sorry...

      --
      But why is the rum gone?
    2. Re:You said don't ask... by BlogPope · · Score: 5, Funny
      IT Managers get zero chicks. Lifeguards get tons of chicks. What happens when then two are combined in the same person?

      You get the curious effect of a "chick ring" as the attractive and repulsive forces reach an equilibrium somewhere just out of arms reach. From there they tend to fall into a stable orbit.

      --
      My other car is a Popemobile
  12. extra hard drives are the key for me. by AmiNTT · · Score: 3, Informative
    For my back ups, I have a fairly simple system. I picked up two tiny (2.5") external drives - about 60 gigs each. I back up data onto one, and bring it to a nearby bank, where I rent a safe deposit box.

    Each Monday, I back a back up to the drive that is at the house (where I work from), and take it to the bank. Then I switch them, putting the newest drive in the bank, and taking home the "old' back up. This gets repeated every week (although admittedly not always on Mondays).

    So far, this has worked for me pretty well.

    Costs? $250 (Canadian) dollars for the drive and $80 per year for the safe deposit box, which also stores all source miniDV tapes from my event video business.

  13. Connected DataProtector by panaceaa · · Score: 2, Informative

    My company, a 4000-employee Silicon Valley software company, uses Connected DataProtector to back up our computers. They have both hosted and unhosted versions, our company is hosting it ourselves. It stores a diff of everyone's computer every day (or some other increment) so that people can back up their computers from any point in the past. I'm just getting started using it, but it looks pretty cool and it was incredibly easy to configure (as a user).

    --
    my blog
  14. Google it by op12 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not specific companies, but comparisons. Here's a good comparison page...though the page is slow loading already :)
    http://www.consumersearch.com/www/computers/online _file_storage/reviews.html

  15. Online backup? - Capacity by tacokill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, umm, how long - exactly - does it take to upload 560 GB over a broadband connection?

    Actually, you'd better make that 560 + 560 GB because I may want to back up my OTHER PC as well.


    I realize I am being sarchastic but I am always confused by "online" backup simply because it doesn't make much sense from a practicality standpoint. A semi-modern PC has a minimum 40GB sized hard drive. And it only goes up from there. I've been online for quite sometime and while things have gotten MUCH better, with respect to bandwidth, it still takes a LONG, LONG, LONG time to transfer huge amounts of data. Note, I am not talking about your 4.5gig ISO image. I'm talking 20 of them. In a row.

    From my point of view: it's dead. Please enlighten me, if you experience is different.

    1. Re:Online backup? - Capacity by pthisis · · Score: 4, Informative

      A semi-modern PC has a minimum 40GB sized hard drive. And it only goes up from there. I've been online for quite sometime and while things have gotten MUCH better, with respect to bandwidth, it still takes a LONG, LONG, LONG time to transfer huge amounts of data. Note, I am not talking about your 4.5gig ISO image. I'm talking 20 of them. In a row.

      Most businesses don't care about backing up all of your pr0n and music. For a lot of places, if you back up documents, email, and source code, you've got the core business stuff--and that's often fairly small. You do a full local backup of the servers, have a standard image of the desktops, then do web backups of a few directories nightly (e.g. all files on some samba share, a source repository, email). The web backups are rsync'd (or equivalent) so only the day's changes are transferred.

      It's not ideal, but for a lot of places it works. Of course, they often find out after a crash that employees _weren't_ storing everything in "Work Documents" folder like they're supposed to.

      For home use I usually just do hourly snapshots to another machine at home (I keep every hour for the last week, and the 4 previous weeks, and montly for 6 months, and then just yearly) with something like:

      http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rsync_snapshots /

      With nothing automated for off-site backups (though I do keep a handful of critical documents off-site by hand).

      I cheat and do the initial rsync on local disk, only incremental stuff goes over the network.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    2. Re:Online backup? - Capacity by HavocBMX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Basically, it works based on sythetic backups. You have to picture that the server machines are running something like CA's ArcServe or Veritas Backup/Replication Exec 10. Both of these products use a back up methodology which although different in implementation does perform functionally realitvely equivelent things. For example take Veritas which is basically the industry standard. What they do is essentially take a snapshot of the storage and only backup those files that have changed. From those weekly snapshots they in turn generate a synthetic full snapshot. Which is then used in place of the full backup for the next week. So the only backed up files are those that have been changed. This reduces the time of backup and allows for many gigs to be backed up in a rational time frame. This in turn allows for online backup and replication.

    3. Re:Online backup? - Capacity by Dominic_Mazzoni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, umm, how long - exactly - does it take to upload 560 GB over a broadband connection?

      On the order of a week. But how much of that data changes on a daily basis? For most users, maybe just a few tens of megabytes or less. For a small fraction of users who generate tens of gigabytes of new data every day which absolutely must be backed up, offsite online is not the best solution. But it works great for everyone else. And it is still useful for the most critical fraction of the heavy data user's data.

    4. Re:Online backup? - Capacity by Spruce28 · · Score: 2, Informative

      We use Online back up here through a company called Live Vault http://www.livevault.com/ and the service is great. We back up about 200 Gigs of data and as the service only takes the delta changes of the hard drives it doen't have to back up the full 200Gb except for the first connect. The bandwidth usage is noticable on a monthly level, but paying an extra $100.00 a month in bandwith fees is no problem. I love the service and it has been very useful.

  16. Gmail by slideroll · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Some people are using Gmail as an online backup system

  17. Good Solution by pastpolls · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We have offices in two cities, and on top of our tape backups, we backup to each other. City one backs up via VPN and data encryption to City two, and visa versa. we are actually two seperate companies with the same parent company, so we encrypt the data (even over encrypted VPN) just to be safe from the prying eyes of people on each end.

    True story: We both run Citrix servers, and one time we had a data loss at my location. Within an hour, we restored our database and application to an extra server at the remote location and used Citrix to connect our users here to the main database. I could then work on restoring from tape, without the pressure of true downtime, just inconvenience time, which I and management can tolerate.

  18. Remote mirroring by AnonymousJackass · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While it would be a lot more convenient to have someone else taking care of your backups, I daren't think of how much it will cost you! I don't know how small you are, and how much data you are looking to backup, but unless it's on the order of multiple terabytes, you should consider setting up your own remote mirroring. "Empty" (ie OS free) RAID boxes really are surprisingly cheap, especially for a Tb or two. If the mirror is purely for backup purposes, you could just keep it in the room next door. If you were thinking more along the lines of disaster recovery, you'd need to locate it in a separate building at the very least. Worthwhile doing, especially if you're in a hurricane affected area...

  19. Proper disater recovery and data restoration.... by bjk002 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Industry standard disaster recovery involves off-site storage of data on tape/dvd, or other media in a *SECURE* location. Most on-line data storage is by its very nature insecure. Data transfer in general over the web is risky. If you are talking about customer information, this is still very taboo.

    Purchase a safety deposit box at your local bank and setup a rotation(daily, weekly, etc..) of cycling you media to and from.

    OR, get in touch with another local business person in your area and setup mutual hot-sites within each others facilities.

    --
    Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
  20. rsync+torrent=backup_cloud by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was looking for a free application like that a few weeks ago and found this guy's nice write-up of desired features.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:rsync+torrent=backup_cloud by Jim+McCoy · · Score: 2

      A solution similar to the one suggested in this page is already being beta tested. Windows-only at the moment, but that will change. Based on the same technology that BitTorrent was derived from...

  21. Re:Apple's .Mac offering by iguana · · Score: 2, Informative

    I use .Mac for backing up my contacts, passwords, and a few small things that I don't want to bother finding on my harddrive.

    I can't get it to work through the corporate firewall, it's kind of slow, and it's very small as you said.

    On the plus side, it has very good integration with the native Apple backup utility. I do find a USB HD more useful, though. And a USB HD works well with the Apple backup util, too.

  22. Just Post the Torrent by dduardo · · Score: 2, Funny

    We'll handle the rest.

  23. My corp. uses "Connected" by chipster · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.connected.com/ Works perfectly - and it's faster than hell. The restore feature is unreal.

  24. Re:'went bad'? by funwithBSD · · Score: 2, Informative

    It can happen. I lost a drive in a raid5, and when it was rebuilding on a hot spare (I got six, one per SCSI bus) I got an unrecoverable read error on a sector containing the parity information.

    Instant loss of a cluster of data. Would have happened on a Mirror set too, if the working mirror had the same problem.

    This happened on DEC/Compaq/HP HSG80, a serious SAN controller, not some cheap internal or software raid.

    We have about 30 or 40 pairs of these HSG's, spinning about 300TB, and this is the first time it has happened. In fact, it is the first time ANYONE on our team of 12 has seen it. Some of these guys have 20+ years of experence, so it is *very* rare.

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  25. My recommendation. by gardyloo · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's been said before, but it's a great one:

    Encrypt everything, then name the files something like "OMG_Hilton_XXX.avi" and upload to Kazaa or LimeWire or something. In 10 years you'll still be able to find copies.

  26. Re:Apple's .Mac offering by Nutria · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The internet was never made for storage.

    So true.

    You can push a heck of a lot more data thru a half dozen 2Gbps HBAs thru Brocade switches, and onto SANs or "switch-attached tape drives", than you can thru a US$4000/month 155Mbps OC3 pipe.

    And now that there are SANs (and "fiber NAS") that use SATA drives, it's easy to make a multi-layer backup strategy, where backups 1st go to cheap SAN/NAS and then to tape.

    And every morning an Iron Mountain courier comes to get last night's tapes and bring back last month's tapes.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  27. md5 != bit-for-bit integrity by bofh23 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    md5 or other checksums do not guarantee bit-for-bit integrity. They are just a way to gain confidence about the integrity of files without resorting to a much slower bit-for-bit comparison.

    --
    "Yeah well ... The Dude abides."
  28. Re:FedEx by Wiseleo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ask the managers at BofA, CITI etc... who tried using that approach with private shipping carriers.

    Oh yeah... You'll be famous the day someone can't account for that tape after it has been shipped.

    --
    Leonid S. Knyshov
    Find me on Quora :)
  29. You confused backups with availability. by arete · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Time to get the backup back up is a valid consideration, but it's not the only one. How easy it is to MAKE the backup (and therefore how current it will be) is arguably more important because having more frequent backups IS more important. Driving to a different town every day is probably not an efficient use of your time unless you can't get enough pipe to xfer just the changed files. Hence online backups.

    If you're paranoid then run your own backup host over ssh at a trusted someone's personal connection. But there's no solution superior to online backups if the incremental changes in files can be met with 100% of your extra nightly bandwidth. Try backup PC on sourceforge. Try using more than 1 at different locations.

    Parent has a good, but different point: If you have a lot of data it's going to take a ton of time to get it back up. If this is likely to be a problem, then by all means find faster ways to ship your data. One way would be to drive and get whichever of your mulitple backup machines is closest. (If you only have 1 backup machine make a copy to take with you and leave the original where it was)

    But another way, especially if you don't have access to the online backups, is to drive a harddrive full of stuff somewhere. IF your backup provider can do an restore from a partially recovered backup (ie, rsync) you can keep extra physical backups lying around and still having the online "current" backup to save you. That is, you could bring in your extra HD from a month ago and just rsync the stuff that changed.

    --
    Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
    1. Re:You confused backups with availability. by avronius · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good rebuttal arete - some very valid points. My last words on the subject: Larger corporations have an easier time justifying "warm backup" sites. Streaming data (using rsync or similar) that has changed is simple enough, and usually they can afford bigger pipes. In the smaller business market, ISP's often charge based on capacity of pipeline utilized / duration of time / or some other "Penalize the greatest users" scheme (I don't think that is 100% evil, but it's not a friendly business model). While I am a strong believer in a combination of services (I'm very paranoid about losing someone else's data), if you can only afford one service, I would still recommend Tape/Disk based archival. As for how to get the tapes / disk / pieces of ivory offsite? I would recommend using a data storage company for storing your backups. Most will come to your business, bring an older set of tapes, pick up a new set of tapes, and place your tapes in a fireproof vault off of your site. I am a firm believer in the power of data transmission, but I wouldn't bet my business on it. - Avron

  30. 312's LeanOnMe did this! Safe AND secure! by skibrian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This has already been built. 312, Inc. did it. tell me if anyone is interested in blowing the dust off it again. We killed it November of 2004 because a lot of people didn't want to trust random people to store their encrypted files. I'd love to get this back out the door...does anyone think there would be demand? We've spent 2 years developing. Any ideas on how my company could recoup some of that investment?? A fair pricing method? The software exists...I just want to know how to unleash it, and it's been terribly frustrating as people somehow missed the value of it last year. Looking for any feedback....send an e-mail to sales@312inc[dot]com (I don't want my personal account spammed) if you want to contact me directly with ideas on how to market our product. For now, we are charging ahead with "BitVault" which is like all the models you guys are complaining about. If we can figure out how to sell LeanOnMe at a fair price...we'd do it. Thanks! www.312inc.com (google for cached websites and documents regarding our past software R&D efforts)