Slashdot Mirror


How Do You Backup 20TB of Data?

Sean0michael writes "Recently I had a friend lose their entire electronic collection of music and movies by erasing a RAID array on their home server. He had 20TB of data on his rack at home that had survived a dozen hard drive failures over the years. But he didn't have a good way to backup that much data, so he never took one. Now he wishes he had.

Asking around among our tech-savvy friends though, no one has a good answer to the question, 'how would you backup 20TB of data?'. It's not like you could just plug in an external drive, and using any cloud service would be terribly expensive. Blu-Ray discs can hold a lot of data, but that's a lot of time (and money) spent burning discs that you likely will never need. Tape drives are another possibility, but are they right for this kind of problem? I don' t know. There might be something else out there, but I still have no feasible solution.

So I ask fellow slashdotters: for a home user, how do you backup 20TB of Data?"
Even Amazon Glacier is pretty pricey for that much data.

57 of 983 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would say use floppies, but I'm kind of old and out of touch now.

    1. Re:Hmmm... by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Funny

      Punched paper tape has better longevity than either floppies or optical media. You just need a really big roll and a lot of time.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      5 1/4" or 3 1/2"?

      8". How young are you?

    3. Re:Hmmm... by Primate+Pete · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can do the job with a mere 128 million single sided, single density 160K disks, like the one on the original IBM PC. When in doubt, go with proven technologies. Assuming a stack of 4 disks is 1cm thick, you should get away with around 1000 m^3 storage space.

    4. Re:Hmmm... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Funny

      Neither, 8" floppies would be the way to go.

      Hard sectored or soft sectored?

      It would be best to decide up front before putting in the order for 80 million disks.

    5. Re:Hmmm... by Cassini2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      At 10 characters per second, the backup would take 63,419 years(*) and require 659 TJ or 0.2 TWh of power to complete. I have a customer that still uses paper tape. It lasts and lasts, and I have only replaced the reader once. The punch needs a new power supply every 20 years or so.

      However, 63,419 years is a long time to wait for a backup to complete.

      (*) this assumes that 1 TB = 1,000,000,000,000 bytes. It takes almost 70,000 years if you add the extra 10%.

    6. Re:Hmmm... by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Informative

      20TB = 1.33LoC

    7. Re: Hmmm... by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, it's local storage to a computer somewhere. If that computer can run Backblaze, then super.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    8. Re:Hmmm... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, but if he's a Microsoft SW user, he *has* to use 5 1/4" floppies. You see, 8" floppies are insufficiently micro and 3 1/2" floppies are insufficiently soft.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:Hmmm... by sdo1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which, if it takes about 1 minute to load each one, it will take you a mere 243 years to do the backup.

      --
      --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    10. Re:Hmmm... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Punch the hole and you can flip them over to double your capacity.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:Hmmm... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Punched paper tape has better longevity than either floppies or optical media.

      If you're going for *actual* longevity, you can't beat fired clay tablets. (Yeah, I know they weren't fired originally, but you have to decide how much you value your MP3 files. I'd certainly take the extra time!)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:Hmmm... by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to this site 2560 Meters = 1 Meg. So that would be 20,000,000 times 2560 = 51,200,000,000 metres = about a third of the way to the sun

    13. Re:Hmmm... by Rhaban · · Score: 5, Funny

      Seed a torrent of it as an encrypted file named "porn.zip" or similar. You'll have it backed up on the cloud for free in no time and available for all of eternity.

    14. Re:Hmmm... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Once again a slashdotter is advocating to take away a musician's right to make a prophet.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    15. Re:Hmmm... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Insightful
      LTO6 tapes hold 6.25 TB, so you probably only need 4. Hardly fills a station wagon - the basket of a push-bike would do fine.

      Of course, you might want to make more than one copy of your data. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B006K1FSKA

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    16. Re:Hmmm... by Old97 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The first 8" I used held 128k. The last one had a capacity of around 1.2 mb. They were twice as fast (transfer rate) as those new fangled 5 1/4 inch floppies. Kids, what do they know?

      --
      Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
    17. Re:Hmmm... by idontgno · · Score: 4, Informative

      At the very end of the 5 1/4" floppy era, the "High-Density" floppy used the same data rate, tracking, and recording density as the 8" 1.2M floppies. They were, in fact, 1.2M 5 1/4" floppies. Which is why their formatted capacity was different from 3.5" "high-density" equivalent, 1.44M.

      Other than electrical needs (as 8" floppies often had their spindle motors directly powered by 120VAC line current), the high-density 5 1/4"s were used as a drop-in replacement for 8" floppies in the hobbyist retrocomputing community. (Not collectors, though; they'd want to keep the gear as cherry as possible.)

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    18. Re:Hmmm... by ewhac · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I had only hard of LTO tapes quite recently, and I did a very tiny bit of poking around. The latest generation is LTO-6, whose tapes can hold 2.5TB each (uncompressed). The tapes themselves are quite modestly priced -- an LTO-4 tape cartridge (800GB uncompressed) costs about $30 each.

      The drives, however, are not cheap. New drives appear to start at around $1200. Used drives are all over the place -- I've seen some on eBay with an opening bid as low as $350. Also, all LTO drives appear to have either an LVD SCSI or a SAS interface, which means you'll also need a controller card. There appears to be no such thing as a SATA LTO drive.

      Plus you get to re-live all the joys of selecting tape vendors, and placing bets on whose tapes are going to last for 20 years.

    19. Re:Hmmm... by lgw · · Score: 3, Informative

      Tape drives need the full SCSI command set, not the trimmed version that made it in to SATA (I'm not sure there's even a "(01) REWIND" supported in SATA).

      LTO tapes stored reasonably ("keep in in a cool dry place", as the song goes) should last 15 years from any vendor, as that's in the spec, and there aren't really bottom-feeder vendors for LTO.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  2. reduce the amount by JeffSh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At home, I didn't feel like paying for 2 large arrays to store my data, so if I rip any media, I always rip it to DIVX. 800 MB for a DVD or even bluray rip is a great economy, saves me money on primary storage and also enables me to back it up. I accept the loss of quality as I can always reference the original media if I want.

    Another option in the future may be subscription services which have HD content, thus eliminating my need to roll my own. We'll see what happens there.

    1. Re:reduce the amount by buchner.johannes · · Score: 3, Informative

      20TB is not out of the world. With a RAID of 4TB disks you can cover that at home, and it doesn't need to be on all the time. Maybe you can reduce the amount of disk usage by reducing duplicate content using bup or an appropriate FS.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    2. Re:reduce the amount by cdrudge · · Score: 5, Funny

      I always rip it to DIVX. 800 MB for a DVD or even bluray rip is a great economy,

      I do the exact same thing with high res pictures. I immediately will take the full resolution raw image and convert it down to a 320px gif. Or maybe a 10% quality jpeg. You get great economy that way too. Who wants to keep a 30+MB image around when you can have almost the same thing in 10kB instead!

    3. Re:reduce the amount by edxwelch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > I always rip it to DIVX. 800 MB for a DVD or even bluray rip is a great economy
      I do that as well, but I found out to my horror that all my DVD's had become unreadable over time. So, probably good idea to test your backups from time to time

    4. Re:reduce the amount by FreonTrip · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'd switch to x264 in an MKV container - you can get the same quality in about 3/4ths the file size without even being clever.

    5. Re:reduce the amount by cdrudge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wasn't looking for it to go anywhere really other than pointing out the absurdity of saying that taking a bluray rip down to a 800MB divx rip results in just an acceptable loss of quality.

      I'm by no means a audio/videophile snob, but you either have a blind and/or deaf if you can't see a MAJOR quality deficiency with a 800 bluray rip. What's the point of having a bluray movie if the first thing you normally do is make it look like crap?

    6. Re:reduce the amount by Artraze · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed.

      Regardless of whether or not 20TB is hording / excessive / inefficient, what it almost certainly is is replaceable. Let's face it, you aren't CERN, most of you data is probably media that you can reacquire with relative ease. It's not being stored because it's irreplaceable it's being stored because it's convenient. A RAID isn't too bad, but add in managing backups and where has that convenience gone? If it costs $10+/month to backup your ripped/downloaded movies, why not just sign up for Netflix?

      Just make a list of all the replaceable data (e.g. videos you have the original disc for) you have and then buy an external hard disk / Blurays to back up the rest. If you lose your RAID, well, it'll be annoying to rebuild, but you built it once... (Besides, I doubt you could restore 20TB over residential internet less time!)

    7. Re:reduce the amount by ncc74656 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      RAID-5 uses up 1 disk worth for striping, so net space in an 8-drive array is 7-drives worth (about 27TB using 4TB drives). The problem with RAID-5 is that you are 2 disks away from failure and rebuilds often kill the disks.

      RAID-6 uses 2 disks worth for striping, so net space in an 8-drive array is 6-drives worth (about 23TB using 4TB drives). Is able to survive a double-disk failure before data loss. Still has some of the same issues as RAID-5.

      I use Greyhole for media and document storage. It handles disks of unequal size (currently running one 3TB and two 1.5TB drives), and you can choose the level of redundancy you need. In my case, movies, TV shows, etc. get a single copy (one file exists on one drive), while documents and photos get two copies (one file exists on two drives). If a drive goes bad, you only lose the files on that drive...and only for the files for which you selected no redundancy. With redundancy, extra file copies are recreated on the remaining drives from the surviving copies; this process is most likely less stressful on the disk set than a RAID rebuild.

      My movies, TV shows, and music are backed up to BD-R, stored in a binder at work. They hold ~20GB each, as I'm using dvdisaster to guard against media errors. When a 2TB drive failed, I brought the backup (currently about 190 discs) home and restored the files that had gone missing. Backup and restore are managed by scripts, with information about what files are on what discs held in a MySQL database that gets periodically backed up off-site as well. The initial backup took several months (on and off) to finish, and the last time I needed to restore, it took about a week, but now I just burn a disc when I have about enough new data to fill one. Burning and verifying takes a few hours, but it's something you can start and walk away.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    8. Re:reduce the amount by wagnerrp · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem with RAID-5 is that you are 2 disks away from failure and rebuilds often kill the disks.

      No. The problem with RAID-5 is that during a rebuild, there is a reasonably possible chance you could have a UBE, and lose one bit, making perfect recovery of the array impossible. Only a stupid controller would consider a UBE to be a failed drive and trash the entire array. On RAID-6, you still have the same possibility of a UBE, but the chances that two separate drives would experience one on the same exact block during a rebuild are so astronomically slim as to be irrelevant.

  3. Crashplan by rossjudson · · Score: 5, Informative

    Crashplan has unlimited storage. I use their home plan; it's unlimited for up to 10 machines. I think I am backing up about 6TB there now.

    1. Re: Crashplan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Crashplan offers unlimited storage, yes, but they limit it indirectly by slowing down uploads.

      I recently paid for a crashplan account to back up ~6TB of media, and at the speeds I'm seeing the initial backup is going to take more than a year. I have 100Mbit/s fiber at my home and can max it easily with other services.

      So for 20TB, it's going to take many years to back up. I don't think that's a practical backup solution. There's a decent chance you're going to lose your data before the initial backup completes. And if crashplan goes under, you have to start all over again with the next "unlimited except for rate" provider, and have no backup in the meantime.

  4. Hard drives + Robocopy by DogDude · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have a 16 TB media collection at home that I just back up on more hard drives.

    External hard drives in USB cases + Robocopy works great for me.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  5. If you want to hoard bits... by polymeris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > It's not like you could just plug in an external drive [...]
    Why not? Maybe not one, but 10 or 20 of them.

    1. Re:If you want to hoard bits... by ewilts · · Score: 4, Informative

      The dataset isn't that huge. Tape can write at speed at least as fast as disk - LTO-5 writes at up to 280MB/sec - far faster than you can read the source at which isn't likely to be fast disk. The seek for a single-file restore will be slower than disk but after the initial seek, the read will be as fast as from a typical archive disk (no, you're not archiving 20TB to SSD, nor are you storing the source data on SSD either)

      However, the change rate for this application is likely to be low. That makes it very feasible to do random testing from the new backups where a minute to do the tape mount/seek is not a problem. You won't be writing more than a single tape in any single run (LTO-5 is ~1.5 TB of uncompressed data).

      For $2K, you'll have the LTO-5 drive. Add $500 for 20 tapes and you can back up the entire set (once) plus a bunch of incrementals. I haven't done the math with LTO-6 which is faster and holds more data. If you want multiple generations, tape is a lot cheaper per TB than disk. The initial drive cost hurts but after that, the price is good at $15/TB or so.

      --
      .../Ed
  6. Do something about your hoarding problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "My friend (read I) lost 20TB of pirated content! What should my friend have done different?"

    How about, ask yourself, how much of that content were you intending to ever consume again. Yeah, you can most likely delete 95% of it, that's 1TB of content that you might use again.

    Hoarders! *lol*

    1. Re:Do something about your hoarding problem by ustolemyname · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not all of us have access to the time machine required to know *which* 1TB that is.

      Are you willing to share yours?

    2. Re:Do something about your hoarding problem by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This problem isnt unique; most people have trouble curating their data. That doesnt change the fact that the problem is mostly self-created, and the best solution isnt to find another place to stuff the 20TB. Its to take the time to cull it down to a reasonable size and then back it up.

  7. Good luck. by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Informative

    A quick check at one service which lists such large amounts, you would be looking at almost $20k/year to keep a single offsite copy of that. That is the posted price however, I imagine that is enough that you could shop around and find a deal, but, a deal is still going to be prohibitive for most people.

    At 20 TB I would start thinking about one of two things: Tape, and/or git-annex.

    Unless prices have changed since I last looked and the scales tipped, tape has the advantage of being cheap. Of course, you will need to test your tapes occasionally and likely want 2 copies just in case, but, at that point you are invested in tape, may as well.

    The other possibility is git-annex and lots of drives, but you can mix types. That way you can keep a catalog of your library and information on where it all is, and how many copies of each thing you have.

    Of course, any way you slice it, each physical piece of media is something that can fail so you have to occasionally test to ensure redundancy.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  8. Don't hoard by rainer_d · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Were those 20T of original movies and music or just stuff he downloaded via bittorent?

    He could have always bought a sufficiently large tape-library from ebay - but I guess the data wasn't worth that much.
    That's always the first pair of questions to ask: how much is it worth and how much would it cost to recreate?
    If the answer is somewhere between "I don't know" and "Well, it's not that much", then he just should stop hoarding that much stuff.

    He could have built a filer with ZFS and sent daily snapshots to a 2nd filer - but that wouldn't have helped him if the house burnt down...

    --
    Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
  9. My solution by StripedCow · · Score: 5, Funny

    Figure out the theory of everything.
    Then you can always recompute your data from scratch.

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  10. Why back it up at all... ask the NSA for a restore by Supp0rtLinux · · Score: 4, Funny

    You could always just call up the NSA and ask them to restore the data. Odds are good they have a copy of it...

  11. Plan for backup before you buy by Ktistec+Machine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whenever you buy storage, you should buy the necessary backup capacity at the same time. You should never buy storage without buying backup capacity. Budget for it right from the start. If you can't afford the backup, you can't afford the storage. This may mean getting half as much storage as you'd like, but that's just the way it has to be. You probably wouldn't buy a car without an engine. It wouldn't do its job. So don't buy storage without backup. If you do, you have a storage system that can't do its job.

  12. I agree but... by matteo.defelice · · Score: 5, Informative

    I agree, I've been using Crashplan for three years and the unlimited space it's really great BUT... ...I'm not sure about the bandwidth they provide: how long it will take to upload 20 TB? Anyway, I don't see what's the problem in using external drives for backup. Here in my lab I've realized that the best way to backup X Terabytes is to have another storage with X Terabytes...

  13. Hilarious by jeffmeden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not like you could just plug in an external drive, and using any cloud service would be terribly expensive. Blu-Ray discs can hold a lot of data, but that's a lot of time (and money) spent burning discs that you likely will never need. Tape drives are another possibility, but are they right for this kind of problem? I don' t know. There might be something else out there, but I still have no feasible solution.

    Lets start from the top: You *can* plug in an external drive, it's called a complete hardware duplicate of your array (or perhaps for space/cost consideration, a single disk based copy held offline and synced regularly). Not hard and not terribly expensive (i would go with this solution personally). Cloud? Yep the bandwidth and storage even on something like Amazon Glacier would be prohibitive to all but the most financially independent geeks. Bluray doesnt hold enough (even at 50gb/disc you need 400 of them, groan). So, tapes? You bet your ass tapes are designed to do exactly this task, why do you think they are still in use? You can get individual tapes at 1/1.5TB, but for a one man operation they are probably going to cost you more than the first solution (offline spinning disks) and they are a pain to manage properly.

    Now what is this doing on ask slashdot? A pencil, some scratch paper, and 15 minutes between amazon.com and newegg.com would tell you the prices of every solution. Oh, right, they need a chance to tee up some targeted ads for Carbonite, Mozy, Crashplan, etc.

  14. Ah, "unlimited"... right. (*cough*) by stoploss · · Score: 5, Informative

    These "unlimited" claims always turn out to be lies. When will we learn?

    My friend paid for an "unlimited" account from JustCloud for backup. He stored 1.8 TB on it and then they "fair use"'d his ass and canceled his account. They didn't even give him a refund for the rest of the money he prepaid.

  15. Amazon Glacier by uiucgrad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I use Glacier and its great. 20 TB is about $200 a month which to me does not seem like all that much money for backing up that much data. The biggest problem from a home users perspective is getting all of that data to Amazon. Hopefully he lives somewhere where fiber is available to his house.

  16. Connect a raspberry pi and by Coeurderoy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Connect a raspberry pi and configure it as a backup server and let it copy all to /dev/null...
    Then put aside the money you would have invested in a "better" solution, put it in a safe bank (under your mattress)
    and wait until you need to restore something..
    Most probably you'll enjoy the money more ...

  17. Re:Another RAID? by jones_supa · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's why it is supposed to be used with caution, as no 'rm' supports it. ;)

  18. Re:Glacier at $20/mn expensive? by jeffmeden · · Score: 3, Informative

    Glacier at $20 per month for 20TB is rediculously cheap by today's standards. And at those sizes, you'd want to ship those drives to Amazon instead of uploading. We do this all the time and it's not that hard.

    The price of TBs of storage of course will come down without question. But by today's standards $20/month for a medium that won't "bit rot" on you is an amazing deal.

    You missed a 0, he has 20,000GB and the cost for glacier is $.01/gb/mo (not including upload charges). So, Glacier would cost him $200 a month or $2400 a year. Not hugely expensive but if you are OK with a quasi-local copy (offline and stored in a fire safe, perhaps) you could do it cheaper for less, after you hit the 1 year mark.

  19. License? by scsirob · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just assuming that your friend had a fully legal collection, I would think that all he needs to do is ask the media companies for a new copy. Because the media industry tells us that we do not buy music, we buy licenses, right?? So even if we lose the bits-and-bytes which are easy to replace, then we still hold a license and the media companies should facilitate that your friend can exercise his licensed rights..

    [/sarcasm]

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
  20. Boxcars / Gigabyte by jabberw0k · · Score: 4, Funny

    If IBM punch cards were used, 1 GB equals approximately 47 cubic yards (assuming 80 bytes per 187x86x0.18mm per card) and about 70,000 lbs (at 2.42 g per card), so one standard railroad boxcar (limited by both cubic capacity and weight) could hold about 3 GB. 20 TB would need over 6000 boxcars of punch cards; at 60 feet per boxcar, that's a freight train about 70 miles long.

    1. Re:Boxcars / Gigabyte by joshuac · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well sure, latency is a bitch but imagine the throughput once it got moving!

  21. Please post Tape backup ref by advid.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To /.ers saying that 1TB+ tapes would be a good idea to do this backup, please:

    Add some references and price of such hardware and media that would suit best home usage.

  22. Re:Go on the internet and find a DLT drive by ewilts · · Score: 3, Informative

    You're dating yourself. LTO-5 is 1.5TB native, 3TB compressed at $25 per tape. LTO-6 is 2.5TB native and 6.25TB compressed. Both of those compressed numbers are using the built-in compression in the drive.

    A 10-pack of LTO-5 tapes is about $250.

    You can easily encrypt the tapes and tape them offsite. You can keep a copy onsite and offsite. You're simply not doing that with disk.

    Your speed is also off - an LTO-5 can write at 280MB/sec. The limiting factor is not the write time on the media but the read time from disk.

    Restore times are typically limited by the write rate on the destination raidset, not the read rate from tape.

    --
    .../Ed
  23. Re:Go on the internet and find a DLT drive by grumbel · · Score: 3, Informative

    LTO-6 can hold 2.5TB per tape, a tape cost ~$70, the drives cost $2000. That's still more expensive then just more HDDs for 20TB, but at >50TB it might be worth it.

  24. Re:math majors by Redmancometh · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now this joke has really come full circle.

  25. Jacquard loom punch cards by drkim · · Score: 3

    I'm backing up my 40TB music library on Jacquard loom punch cards.

    Added bonus: You can use the punched cards to make fabric.
    Right now I'm wearing Justin Bieber's "Love Me" ...as a sweater!

    https://web.duke.edu/isis/gess...