Ma.gnolia User Data Is Gone For Good

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ma.gnolia User Data Is Gone For Good

Posted by kdawson on Friday February 20, 2009 @04:48AM from the lost-in-the-clouds dept.

miller60 writes "The social bookmarking service Ma.gnolia reports that all its user data was irretrievably lost in the Jan. 30 database crash that knocked the service offline. Ma.gnolia founder Larry Halff recently discussed the crash and the lessons to be learned from Ma.gnolia's experience. A lesson for users: don't assume online services have lots of staff and servers, and always keep backup copies of your data. Ma.gnolia was a one-man operation running on two Mac OS X servers and four Mac minis."

14 of 450 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Needless loss by hattig · 2009-02-20 04:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Argh, why not just add a backup or replication database on one of the spare Mac Minis?
That way you would have needed a complete server farm disaster to mess things up irretrievably.
1. Re:Needless loss by qoncept · 2009-02-20 05:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Or back it up, like, once a day, or week, or ever, to a flash drive or something. That's a lesson that's already been learned, and it's common sense. I'm terrible about backing up my own data (anything I've lost and recovered is usually something that just happened to be on a remote web server somewhere, coincidentally, because it was always intended to be on the web). But all of my websites, with other users' data, are backed up. It doesn't take a very complex scheme or much thought. A cron job to dump your database and tar your web structure and then copy it to a different location.
  
  I definitely have my doubts that someone who could make this mistake is all that capable "lessons learned."
  
  --
  Whale
2. Re:Needless loss by eln · 2009-02-20 05:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  A simple periodic dump to an external hard drive would have at least been something. I know that small-time operations shouldn't be expected to have robust backup schemes, but if your primary purpose is to store other people's data, the FIRST thing on your mind should be how to back it up. Once you lose someone's data, they'll never use anything you put out again, and they'll tell all their friends not to either.
3. Re:Needless loss by Ephemeriis · 2009-02-20 05:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Argh, why not just add a backup or replication database on one of the spare Mac Minis?
  That way you would have needed a complete server farm disaster to mess things up irretrievably.
  Replication gives you redundancy, much like RAID does. It lets you survive a hardware failure or two. It is not a backup. If the building burns down, or a tree falls on your server room, or lightning fries everything you are still screwed.
  What they needed was a backup. A tape, or removable HDD, or a flash drive, or a CD, or something that can be taken out of the building on a regular basis. Once a day, once a week, once a month... Whatever.
  Then, no matter what happens to your live hardware, you've got a backup you can restore from. Buy some new hardware, throw your backup at it, done!
  
  --
  "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
4. Re:Needless loss by Blakey+Rat · 2009-02-20 05:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If you read the transcript, that's what they were doing, a simple firewire DB dump.
  The problem is that they never tested the backups, and they didn't keep versioned backups. So they'd been backing-up the corrupted database for awhile before the site finally crashed for good. When it crashed, they only had the corrupted database backup. Additionally, the DB server was on RAID but of course the corrupted DB would just get saved to both HDs, so that's no good in a situation like this.
  Basically, when the site crashed, he had three copies (2 RAID, 1 backup) of the data: all corrupt. The guy wasn't totally retarded when it came to backups, just 80% retarded.
  
  --
  Comment of the year
Who the hell is Ma.gnolia by Jailbrekr · 2009-02-20 04:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

And how can they be slashdot worthy when they are a social networking site with ONLY a half a terabyte of data? In short, who cares?

--
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
Re:Food for Stallman by ZeroPly · 2009-02-20 04:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Stallman's argument is more that cloud services are almost always non-open. He does not have a per se objection to cloud services - and if you were to reveal all your source code and protocols, I doubt it would be objectionable to him.
Of course it's impossible to free cloud services in the sense of modification and distribution, but if the source is open you have the chance to make your own.

--
Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
Re:Mac reliability by jetsci · 2009-02-20 04:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

So umm...I have a confession...

I had no idea anyone actually used Mac's as servers. Sure, I bet you can get apache running or something but I didn't realize anyone had. Therefore, this is my first bit of exposure to this idea of Macs as servers and its all negative!

Woe is me.

--
Bored at work? Play Game!
Lesson? by The+Moof · 2009-02-20 04:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

discussed the crash and the lessons to be learned

Lessons such as "Regularly monitor and maintain backups like and business should?"
Lessons Learned?? by ACK!! · 2009-02-20 05:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Like frickin' having a backup? Isn't that one of the first things you ever learn if your business relies on computers + userdata?

--
ACK /ak/ interj. 2. [from the comic strip "Bloom County"] An exclamation of surprised disgust, esp. i
Re:Mac reliability by beelsebob · 2009-02-20 05:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, because they don't come with apache and php pre-installed, only a ticky box away from running.
Seriously, do people still not realise that OS X is just UNIX with a pretty UI?
Re:Mac reliability by SatanicPuppy · 2009-02-20 05:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Mac servers are pretty. They do okay, they have nice swanky data enclosures, and the form factor is roughly the same as anyone elses.
It's just whether or not you want to use OS X. I disagree that OS X is "just unix," however. It's not even "just linux" or "just bsd". OS X has it's own warts, and while it may be stable and friendly, I'd rather have a real *nix running on less pretty hardware.
The best use I've ever had for the big Mac servers is running as a file server in a windows/mac environment. If you still have any pre-OS X machines around, that's about the only way to get them all on the same machine (If you say windows mac volume, I'm mailing a dead fish to your house).
Otherwise, you know, you can install apache, whatever, but it's not any different from using a regular linux server in terms of increased functionality, and there are some significant OS update issues that can cause problems. Mac updates are of the all or nothing school, and they WILL break stuff, so you need to be careful.

--
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Re:Mac reliability by meadowsoft · 2009-02-20 07:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think you are missing the importance of a disaster recovery plan, with backups, for any mission critical hardware, regardless of vendor. Why didn't Mag have any sort of backup plan that was tested? Clustered hardware does not equal a backup plan - thanks for trying there.
Was there in fact a schedule of backups of the operational system? This seems like a rubber band and duct tape operation to me.
Re:Mac reliability by SSCGWLB · 2009-02-20 07:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Wait, you mean apples makes all their own hardware? Really?
No, they use CPUs from Intel, hard drives from WD/Seagate/Maxtor/whoever, graphics chips from nVidea/ATI, etc.
So, no, you do NOT get what you pay for hardware wise. You are getting something identical or very similar to everybody else, from the same manufactures, you are just paying a little more.