Slashdot Mirror


Online Website Backup Options?

pdcull writes "I can't be the only person on the planet who has this problem: I have a couple of websites, with around 2 GB of space in use on my hosting provider, plus a few MySQL databases. I need to keep up-to-date backups, as my host provides only a minimal backup function. However, with a Net connection that only gets to 150 Kbps on a good day, there is no way I can guarantee a decent backup on my home PC using FTP. So my question is: does anybody provide an online service where I can feed them a URL, an FTP password, and some money, and they will post me DVDs with my websites on them? If such services do exist (the closest I found was a site that promised to send CDs and had a special deal for customers that had expired in June!), has anybody had experience with them which they could share? Any recommendations of services to use or to avoid?"

48 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Why not use an online solution? by MosesJones · · Score: 5, Informative

    Rather than "posting DVDs" I'd go for something like Amazon's S3 and just dump the backup to them. Here is a list of S3 Backup solutions that would do the job.

    I've personally moved away from hard-media as much as possible because the issue on restore is normally about the speed to get it back on the server and its there that online solutions really win as they have the peering arrangements to get you the bandwidth.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:Why not use an online solution? by beh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Similarly, I'm not using DVDs etc. for my server backup. A few years back, seeing how much my provider would charge me for a decent amount of backup space, I opted to get an additional server instead; the second server now provides
      secondary DNS, secondary MX to my regular system, but also has all data for a cold-standby ( I would still need to change addresses in DNS manually in case of a disaster, and bring up services, but pretty much all the data is in place).

      The data is synchronised between both servers several times a day - first backed up locally to a second disk on the same machine, then rsynced between the two...

      The solution was cheaper than the cost of the backup, and gives me extra flexibility in terms of what I can do. The only 'cost' is that both machines sacrificed disk space to be back-up for the other (since both machines have >400GB in disk space, giving up even half the disk space of each machine isn't a big limitation - at least, not for *my* needs. YMMV).

    2. Re:Why not use an online solution? by txoof · · Score: 2, Informative

      S3 is a pretty good option. I've been using the jungledisk client along with rsync to manage offsite home backups. S3 Is pretty cheap and the clients are fairly flexible.

      I haven't played with any remote clients, but your hosting provider can probably hook up one of the many clients mentioned in the parrent. The price of S3 is hard to beat. I spend about $6 per month on ~20 gigs worth of backups.

      --
      This one's tricky. You have to use imaginary numbers, like eleventeen... --Hobbes
    3. Re:Why not use an online solution? by beh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, it will - but that problem you will have with a provider-based backup as well. If your data gets corrupted without you noticing, your backup will 'save' corrupt data...

      What you can do to at least partially save yourself is to at least make sure the rsync users are jailed and can only rsync to the target directory, not being able to access anything else.

    4. Re:Why not use an online solution? by ghoti · · Score: 3, Informative

      JungleDisk's built-in backup can also keep older versions of files, which is great in case a file gets corrupted and you only discover that after a few days. It's dirt cheap too, $20 for a lifetime license on an unlimited number of machines.

      For this to work, you need to be able to run the jungledisk daemon though, which is not an option with some shared hosting plans. Also, to mount the S3 bucket as a disk, you obviously need root access. But if you do, JungleDisk is hard to beat IMHO.

      --
      EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
    5. Re:Why not use an online solution? by alexgieg · · Score: 2, Informative

      . . . to mount the S3 bucket as a disk, you obviously need root access. But if you do, JungleDisk is hard to beat IMHO.

      Not really. If the server kernel has FUSE enabled, and the user space tools are installed, any user member of the related group can mount a "jungledisked" S3 bucket in his userspace without the need for root access.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    6. Re:Why not use an online solution? by merreborn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Similarly, I'm not using DVDs etc. for my server backup. A few years back, seeing how much my provider would charge me for a decent amount of backup space, I opted to get an additional server instead

      It's important, when using this method, that your second server be in a separate datacenter.

      Duplicating your data is only half of a backup plan. The other half is making sure that at least one of those duplicates is in a physically separate location.

      There are many things that can conceivably take down entire datacenters -- theft, bankruptcy, utility outages, floods, fire, earthquakes...

      While these things are somewhat unlikely, they *do* happen, and you don't want to lose years of work if they do.

  2. Why FTP? Use rsync. by NerveGas · · Score: 5, Informative

    It seems like the only problem with your home computer is FTP. Why not use rsync, which does things much more intelligently - and with checksumming, guarantees correct data?

    The first time would be slow, but after that, things would go MUCH faster. Shoot, if you set up SSH keys, you can automate the entire process.

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  3. Sure you need to back the full 2 gig? by sleeponthemic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Presumably, much of that 2 gig of data is static, so perhaps you could look into minimisation of exactly *what* you need to back up? It might be within the realm of your net access.

    --
    I record my sleeptalking
  4. bqinternet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    We use http://www.bqinternet.com/
    cheap, good, easy.

  5. yeah, use rsync. by SethJohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I 100% agree with NerveGas on the rsync suggestion. I use it in reverse to backup my laptop to my hosting provider.

    Here's the one thing to remember in terms of rsync. It's going to be the CURRENT snapshot of your data. Not a big deal, except if you're doing development and find out a week later that changes you made to your DB have had unintended consequences. If you've rsynced, you're going to want to have made additional local backups on a regular basis so you can roll back to one of those snapshots prior to when you hosed your DB. Apologies if that was obvious, but rsync is the transfer mechanism. You'll still want to manage archives locally.

    Seth

    1. Re:yeah, use rsync. by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Then what you need is rdiff-backup, works like rsync except it keeps older copies stored as diffs.

      As for FTP, why the hell does anyone still use ftp? It's insecure, works badly with nat (which is all too common) and really offers nothing you don't get from other protocols.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:yeah, use rsync. by xaxa · · Score: 5, Informative

      Then what you need is rdiff-backup, works like rsync except it keeps older copies stored as diffs.

      Another option is to use the --link-dest option to rsync. You give rsync a list of the older backups (with --link-dest), and the new backup is made using hard links to the old files where they're identical.
      I haven't looked at rdiff-backup, it probably provides similar functionality.

      Part of my backups script (written for zsh):

      setopt nullglob
      older=($backups/*(/om))
      unsetopt nullglob

      rsync --verbose -8 --archive --recursive --link-dest=${^older[1,20]} \
                              user@server:/ $backups/$date/

    3. Re:yeah, use rsync. by Lennie · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is also the --backup --backup-dir options (you'll need both). It keeps a copy of the files that have been deleted or changed, if you use a script to keep it in seperate directories you'll have a pretty good history of all the changes.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    4. Re:yeah, use rsync. by xaxa · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, rsync has a --bwlimit option to limit the bandwidth it uses.

    5. Re:yeah, use rsync. by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Using hard links, you can make multiple trees using only the storage space of the changed files. Here's one example: http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rsync_snapshots/

  6. Re:Why FTP? Use rsync. by Andrew+Ford · · Score: 2, Informative

    Or simply use rsnapshot. However whatever backup solution you use, make sure to create dumps of your databases as backing up the database files while they are in use will give you backup files you cannot restore from. If you backup your database dumps, you can exclude your databases files from the backup.

  7. Gmail backup by tangent3 · · Score: 3, Informative

    You may have to use extra tools to break your archive into seperate chunks fitting Gmail's maximum attachment size, but I've used Gmail to backup a relative small (~20mb) website. The trick is to make one complete backup, then make incremental backups using rdiff-backup. I have this done daily with a cron job, sending the bz2'ed diff to a Gmail account. Every month, it will make a complete backup again.

    And a seperate Gmail account for the backup of the mysql database.

    This may be harder to do with a 2GB website, i guess, since Gmail provides atm about 6GB of space which will probably last you about 2 months. Of course you could use multiple gmail accounts or automated deletion of older archives...

    But seriously, 2GB isn't too hard to do your from own PC if you only handle diffs. The first time download would take a while, but incremental backups shouldn't take too long unless your site changes drastically all the time.

    1. Re:Gmail backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This strikes me as a really dumb thing to do; as both a) using it for data storage rather than primarily email storage and b) signing up for multiple accounts are both violations of the gmail TOS, you are just asking for your backups to not be available when you most need them.

    2. Re:Gmail backup by LiquidFire_HK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I certainly don't claim using Gmail for backup is a smart thing to do, can you point out where in the ToS this is stated, as I looked through it and see no mention of either restriction?

  8. Wow by crf00 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow! So you are asking somebody to download your website's home folder and database, look at the password and private information of members, and deliver you dvd that is ready to be restored with rootkit along?

    1. Re:Wow by teknikl · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, I had noticed the complete lack of paranoia in the original post as well.

    2. Re:Wow by pdcull · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's why I'd want somebody realiable. My hosting provider could steal my info too if they really wanted too, although I certainly trust them not to. Oh, I'm paranoid alright... it's just that living in a Rio de Janeiro slum, as I do, my paranoia is more about things like flying lead objects...

  9. I had the same problem... by cperciva · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After looking at the available options, I decided that there was nothing which met my criteria for convenience, efficiency, and security. So I decided to create my own.

    I'm looking for beta testers: http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2008-05-06-tarsnap-beta-testing.html

  10. rsync - it's in the tag by DrogMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    rsync to get the data, cp -al to keep snapshots. I've been using this for years to manage TB of data over relatively low-speed links. You'll take a hit first-time (so kick it off at night, kill it in the morning, and the next night just execute the same command and it'll eventually catch up, then cp -al it, then lather rinse, repeat. This page: http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rsync_snapshots/ has been about for years. Use it!

    1. Re:rsync - it's in the tag by xehonk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And if you dont feel like writing scripts yourself, you can use rsnapshot, which will do all of the work for you.

  11. Re:Why FTP? Use rsync. by Sophia+Ricci · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes. rsync is lot better, I always use it. I personally use rsync with -z option to compress and decompress the files on the fly, which improves speed a lot, most of files being text files.

  12. Re:Why FTP? Use rsync. by houghi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Many hosting providers do not have this option and not even sftp. :-/

    So that makes that you are stuck with FTP or need to change hosting provider, which is also not always an option.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  13. Give them here by Lord_Sintra · · Score: 5, Funny

    Send me your FTP details and some cash and I'll...backup...your data.

  14. Backuppc.sourceforge.net by star3am · · Score: 2, Informative

    Unbelievable Backup Software, BackupPC, it uses Rsync, and will solve all your troubles, it's truly amazing backups/restore solution, check it out .. all the best! Riaan

  15. I sure hope you're no UK based... by jonnyj · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...because if you are and you're planning to sent personal data (there can't be many 2GB web sites that contain no personal data at all) on DVD through the mail, you might want to look at recent pronouncements from the Information Commissioner. A large fine could be waiting for you if you go down that route.

  16. Sitecopy by houghi · · Score: 2, Informative

    I would seperate the content. First there is the MySQL part. Export it on a daily basis (or more often). You can export it as a whole or only those parts that you desire. Make a php page for each thing you desire to download and protect it however you like.
    Then point lynx to it to download the file.

    The content is another matter. To update my sites I use sitecopy What I do is make the site localy and when I am ready, I run sitecopy and it will upload the site.
    As I do incremetial backups localy, I do have the previous version there.
    If this is not an option, it should not be too hard to use sitebackup to, uh, backup the site.

    Put all this in a script and crontab should do the rest.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  17. How quickly do you need it back? by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One thing a lot of people forget when they propose backup systems is not just how quickly can you take the backup, but how quickly do you need it back?

    A sync to your own PC with rsync will, once the first one's done, be very fast and efficient. If you're paranoid and want to ensure you can restore to a point in time in the last month, once the rsync is complete you can then copy the snapshot that's on your PC elsewhere.

    But you said yourself that your internet link isn't particularly fast. If you can't live with your site being unavailable for some time, what are you going to do if/when the time comes that you have to restore the data?

  18. Re:Why FTP? Use rsync. by v1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I use rsync on a few dozen systems here, some of which are over 1TB in size. Rsync works very well for me. Keep in mind that if you are rsyncing an open file such as a database, the rsync'd copy may be in an inconsistent state if changes are not fully committed as rsync passes through the file. There are a few options here for your database. First one that comes to mind is to close or commit and suspend/lock it, make a copy of it, and then unsuspend it. Then just let it back up the whole thing, and if you need to restore, overwrite the DB with the copy that was made after restoring. The time the DB is offline for the local copy will be much less than the time it takes rsync to pass through the DB, and will always leave you with a coherent DB backup.

    If your connection is slow, and if you are backing up large files, (both of which sound true for you?) be sure to use the keep-partial option.

    One of my connections is particularly slow and unreliable. (it's a user desktop over a slow connection) For that one I have made special arrangements to cron once an hour instead of once a day. It attempts the backup, which is often interrupted by the user sleeping/shutting down the machine. So it keeps trying it every hour it's on, until a backup completes successfully. Then it resets the 24 hr counter and won't attempt again for another day. That way I am getting backups as close to every 24 hrs as possible, without more.

    Another poster mentioned incrementals, which is not something I need here. In addition to using a version of rsync that does incrementals, you could also use something off-the-shelf/common like retrospect that does incremental but wouldn't normally work for your server, and instead of running that over the internet, run it on the local backup you are rsyncing to. If you need to go back in time a bit still can, but without figuring a way to jimmy in rsync through your network limits.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  19. why not try ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    NSA.gov?
    NSA: We backup your data so you won't have to!

    How it works:
    First, edit each page on your website ab add the following meta tags: how-to, build, allah, infidels, bomb (or just any of the last three, if you're in a hurry).

    On the plus side, you don't need to give them your money, nor your password.

    On the minus side ... there is no minus side (I mean, who needs to travel anyway?)

    Posting anonymously as I have moderated in this thread (that, and they already know where I live).

  20. Actually, his only problem is.... by raehl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... his slow internet connection, and wants to pay something to not have to move files over his slow internet connection.

    How about:

    - Pay for a hosting provider that DOES provide real backup solutions....
    - Pay for a real broadband connection so you CAN download your site....

    As with most things that are 'important'...

    Right, Fast or Cheap - pick two.

    1. Re:Actually, his only problem is.... by pdcull · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep... I didn't mention in the question that I'm in the middle of a favela (slum) in the hillside morro (slum) in the interior of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil... My host is in the US...

    2. Re:Actually, his only problem is.... by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nevertheless, as others have mentioned, if your data is fairly static, then the initial backup might be painful, but then backing up only changes shouldn't be too difficult.

      I've never really understood some of the problems that come along, mainly because I'm not a website developer (only as a personal thing). If you develop your site locally and then upload it, all your pages and codes and images should already be on your own computer.

      If you get a lot of dynamic content (people uploading media or writing thing in a blog or something), then I can see the problem.

      In your case, unless you can convince your provider to run a utility to mount Amazon's S3 and then give you shell level access instead of just FTP, then I don't see how that will work for you (many web sites use S3, but I don't think it's possible in your position).

      So that leaves option 1: get a better provider. But even that doesn't help, does it, because now you have to move all your stuff to a new provider.

      You're really stuck. Maybe you can pay for temporary shell level access to a server somewhere that does have a lot of speed. I don't know. Looks like you will probably have to suck it up and do some really long, slow backups, regardless of your solution.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  21. Shared hosting by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Interesting

    OK, I keep hearing "use rsync" or other software. What about those of us who use shared web hosting, and don't get a unix shell, but only a control panel? Or who have a shell, but uncaring or incompetent admins who won't or can't install rsync? I know the standard slashdot response is "get a new host that does" but there are dozens of legitimate reasons that someone could be saddled with this kind of web host.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Shared hosting by lukas84 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      there are dozens of legitimate reasons that someone could be saddled with this kind of web host.

      No, sorry. Not a single one.

    2. Re:Shared hosting by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Write PHP or ASP code to generate your backups as a tar or zip and get the files that way.

      When you pay for the economy hosting, you gotta write your own solutions.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Shared hosting by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      I love when I ask a question, and the question gets totally ignored and people insist on the exact thing that I specifically excluded as an answer. Thanks, slashdot!

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Shared hosting by rhizome · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I love when I ask a question, and the question gets totally ignored and people insist on the exact thing that I specifically excluded as an answer.

      I agree that there are countless legitimate reasons why you would be "saddled" with a Control Panel based webhost. There are also countless legitimate reasons not to continue using that host, having backup requirements that the webhost doesn't support is one of them. Maybe not so explicitly stated by the flowering examples of conventional wisdom above, but if you're going to mysteriously exclude "Run. Fast. Now." from your list of acceptable answers then you run the risk of painting yourself into a corner.

      Business continuity undergirds much of system administration, much more than choice of webhost, but if you are unable to make a business case for why the company should change webhosts in terms of, "If something happens, we're screwed," then you should at least not be excluding rational choices and at most should not be dealing with the BC issues of the company.

      I don't know how cheap webhosts go, but your implication is that there is no two-way communication allowed with the server itself, possibly there's just an "Upload Site" file selector in the Control Panel? If so, then you need to realize that you have only client-level access and so your backups are going to be client level. If you need anything on the backend like DB dumps then you need a way to get to them, which you don't seem to have.

      If, as you allow in your question, the host does in fact give you a shell but no rsync then the answer is simple: "scp -r". For database backups you'll either need a DB interface or utility to do your dumps, or be able to copy the datafiles themselves (janky and unreliable quality). For low-bandwidth situations a good stopgap would be to get a shell host from which you can copy your backups to another location over a larger pipe.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    5. Re:Shared hosting by sootman · · Score: 3, Informative

      > OK, I keep hearing "use rsync" or other software. What
      > about those of us who use shared web hosting, and
      > don't get a unix shell, but only a control panel?

      As long as you've got scriptability on the client, you should be able to cobble something together. Like, in OS X, you can mount an FTP volume in the finder (Go -> Connect to Server -> ftp ://name:password@ftp.example.com) and then just

      rsync -avz /Volumes/ftp.example.com/public_html/* ~/example_com_backup/

      (Interestingly, it shows up as user@ftp.example.com in the Finder but the user name isn't shown in /Volumes/.)

      AFAIK, pretty much any modern OS (even Windows since 98, AFAIK) can mount FTP servers as volumes. OS X mounts them as R/O, which I always thought was lame, but that's another rant.

      > Or who have a shell, but uncaring or incompetent
      > admins who won't or can't install rsync?

      If you've got shell (ssh) access, you can use rsync. (Not over telnet, natch. If that's all you've got, look at the workaround above.) Rsync works over ssh with nothing more than

      rsync -avz user@example.com:~/www/* ~/example_com_backup/

      Use SSH keys to make life perfect.

      Or, google for 'site mirroring tool'. Many have an option to only download newly-changed files.

      To get your databases, make a page like

      print "<table border='1' cellpadding='5' cellspacing='0'>\n";
      for ($row=0;$row<mysql_num_rows($result);$row++) {
          print "<tr>\n";
          for ($col=0;$col<mysql_num_fields($result);$col++) {
              print "<td>";
              print mysql_result($result,$row,$col);
              print "</td>\n";
          }
          print "</tr>\n";
      }
      print "</table>\n";

      and download that every so often.

      For the original poster, who was complaining about downloading many gigs over a slow link, just rsync over and over until its done--if it drops a connection, the next attempt will start at the last good file.

      And if you've got a control panel, look for a button labeled 'backup'! My host uses CPanel and there's a magic button.

      Final option: how did the data get onto the www server in the first place? Isn't there already a "backup" on your local machine in the form of the original copies of all the files you've uploaded? If you haven't been backing up in the first place, well, yeah, making up for that might be a little painful. (Note: if your site hosts lots of user-uploaded content, ignore any perceived snarkiness. :-) )

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  22. Why not use Suso? by suso · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sorry for the self plug, but this just seems silly. Your web host should be backing up your website and offer you restorations. I guess this isn't a standard feature any more. But it is at Suso. We backup your site and databases everyday. And can restore them for you for free.

    1. Re:Why not use Suso? by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One thing that I've learned though is you can not rely on a hosting company's backup to necessarily be timely, reliable, and/or convenient. If you want to backup multiple times during the day, have multiple generations of backups, be able to very quickly restore if need be, all can make the hosting backup unattractive. I'm not saying yours is that way, just with some of the hosting companies I've dealt with in the past.

      This also doesn't take into consideration the best-practice of having your backups off-site for disaster recovery. It doesn't help very much to have your backup server/drive/whatever 1U down in the rack when the building collapses, has a fire, floods, etc destroying everything in it.

    2. Re:Why not use Suso? by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because most sites have 2 failure points.

      1 - they buy the super cheap service with no backup.

      2 - the site is designed poorly with no backup capabilities.

      If your site has a DB, your site better have a admin function to sump the DB to a tgz file you can download. Mine generates a password protected rss feed and encrypted tgz file (in a password protected area.) I simply have a rss reader/retriever configured to watch all my sites and retrieve the backups when they are generated.

      I get that DB and any user/customer files, all is well. the site it's self I uploaded so it's silly to back it up works great and I don't care if all I get is 150kbps because it can go for 3 days for the weekly backup, and incremental take less than 2 hours.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  23. Thanks for your comments... by pdcull · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hi everyone, I didn't mention in my question that where I'm living (Rio de Janeiro slum) there aren't that many options for internet access. Also, as all my sites are my very much not-for-profit, I'm limited as to how much I can spend on my hosting plan. I've been using Lunarpages for a number of years now, and generally find them very good, although if I stupidly overwrite a file, or want to go back to a previous version of something, I'm out of luck. As I am a lazy (read time-challenged) individual, I tend to use Pmwiki and maintain my sites online, hence my need for regular, physical backups. Anyway, thanks everyone for your help, I still can't help thinking that somebody must be able to make a pile of cash offering such as service to non-techie site owners...