rsnapshot ou Snapraid ?
Snapraid isn't backup either. It is raid that isn't realtime.
rsnapshot ou Snapraid ?
Snapraid isn't backup either. It is raid that isn't realtime.
Good explanation ryecoaaron. I always thought Raid was for backup.
The what is best : rsnapshot ou Snapraid ?
I'll explain the difference between the two solutions you mention, for this I'm going to simplify it to the extreme that I leave details out
Snapraid is used to ensure the integrity of your data (protection against silent corruption / bitrot). Since this solution normally keeps the data on the same system, its not considered a backup. e.g. if your system gets a virus, mallware, hack, electronic falure that kills your harddisks, etc this data is gone.... so not a backup.
rsnapshot is used to make copies of your data to another location or drive. Its benefit compared with just copying files is that it has the option to only copy changed files since your last update (saves storage space).
I believe you are looking to backup your data, then you should choose rsnapshot, its a very decent solution.
@ryecoaaron, good catch. Going to work on a article to explain the difference on the wiki.
Ah, yes. Again. pretty clear. I'll go for rsnapshot.
Rsnapshot uses mirroring (like RAID1), which means that you have one data drive and everything is duplicated on the backup drive.
- Pro: If the data drive fails, you can plug in the backup drive an read the files.
- Con: You use 50% of drives for the backup.
SnapRAID uses parity (like RAID5), which means that you have 1 to 4 data drives for one parity drive.
- Pro: You use 20 to 50% of your drives for the backup depending on the total number of drives.
- Con: Recovering files from the parity data requires a manual operation on the command line.
If you have only 2 drives of the same size, then you might as well stick with Rsnapshot. For 3 drives or more, consider SnapRAID.
see my purple remarks to have a complete picture
Alles anzeigenRsnapshot uses mirroring (like RAID1), which means that you have one data drive and everything is duplicated on the backup drive.)
Its not mirroring (like raid 1) which consists of an exact copy of a set of data, rsnapshot is only refering to unchanged files using hardlinks (when snapshotting). Some nasties remove the file itself, making your backup unusable (virusses, damage sectors, etc).
- Pro: If the data drive fails, you can plug in the backup drive an read the files.
- Con: You use 50% of drives for the backup.
- con: no bitrot protection and such
This is pratically never true because anyone using this solution is making snapshots, basically rsynch with hardlinks to every unchanged file. So you always use more then 50%
SnapRAID uses parity (like RAID5), which means that you have 1 to 4 data drives for one parity drive.
- Pro: You use 20 to 50% of your drives for the backup depending on the total number of drives.
- Con: Recovering files from the parity data requires a manual operation on the command line.
- pro: bitrot protections and such
If you have only 2 drives of the same size, then you might as well stick with Rsnapshot. For 3 drives or more, consider SnapRAID.
Snapraid is an always connected, when you get hits with nasties (Fire, virusses, hacker,s systemmalfunctions, etc) its very possible that you lose all your data.
Snapraid is optimally used when you already have a regular backup or when a backup is a offordable solution for you. For important data I would choose rsnapshot over snapraid any day.
P.s. I use snapraid to, it basically is my dayly and weekly backup mechanisme, I make yearly full backups with rsync to a remote server and monthly snapshots using hardlinks. So nothing against snapshot, its just always connected and thus vulnerable.
1. RAID is not a backup. If it has the word/acronym/phrase "RAID" in it, it is not a backup solution and you are risking losing all of your data. Yes, this means SnapRAID is NOT A FREAKING BACKUP.
2. Using rsnapshot for backup is only useful if it creates a complete copy of the data for you to disconnect and store elsewhere. If the "backup" drive remains connected to your system, it isn't a backup.
3. When it comes to backups, the correct strategy is 3-2-1. Three copies of all your data, in Two different formats, One of which is off-site. That could be spare drives and cloud storage, spare drives and tape, tape and cloud storage, etc. Personally I'm using a remote NAS at my parents' house about 4 hours away (therefore protected in case of most natural disasters) that uses Syncthing to keep up to date, and ZFS snapshots at both ends to allow for things like crypto virus recovery. Considering using Amazon Cloud Drive to add another layer.
This is only for sensitive/personal data like tax receipts from TurboTax, family photos, CrashPlan backups for all the PCs, personal documents, etc. I also throw in my ebook collection and config files for the routers switches and access points in my lab, because it's useful data that is low volume.
The rest tends to be OS install ISOs, media files, and other bulk data that I can re-download or re-rip if needed. (For media, re-rips from original constitutes the second format anyhow.)
So far the only thing here that really comes close to an actual backup is rsnapshot, and I can't even say that's the case if it uses hard links and expects to be connected to the original machine. I don't know, I've never installed it.
@GreenBean Some of your comments are wrong and rsnapshot is not as vulnerable to viruses. If you don't share any of the backup volume, how is the virus going to ruin the rsnapshot backups? I have rsnapshot running at a school I help and they have been hit by the crypto virus. Guess how many files we lost? None that were older than 1 hour because rsnapshot was setup to take hourly backups.
The first copy to the backup drive is not a hard link. How do you hard link across drives?? You can't. Only unchanged future snapshots will be hard linked to the first copy. So, a virus removing the file will not ruin your backup.
And yes, you use more than 50% but not much more unless you are constantly editing videos. Most people don't have 100% full drives. So, rsnapshot to another drive of the same size usually works well.
With remotemount, you can rsnapshot to a remote server as well.
I will say once again that rsnapshot and snapraid are not competing services. snapraid is not backup and rsnapshot is not bitrot protection/redundancy. They can work very well together.
So far the only thing here that really comes close to an actual backup is rsnapshot, and I can't even say that's the case if it uses hard links and expects to be connected to the original machine. I don't know, I've never installed it.
It doesn't expect to be connected to the original machine. It is just using an rsync command. If you could mount the drive before the rsnapshot run and unmount after, that would work just fine. You should try it. It is very good.
If the "backup" drive remains connected to your system, it isn't a backup.
I disagree with this. Having a local backup that isn't accessible is still a backup. It shouldn't be your only one. I backup locally multiple times a day (protects against drive failure). Backup to a remote server daily (protects against server failure). and backup to tape every few weeks (not kept at home,protects against location desctruction). I feel very secure with this and have been very successful recovering from problems.
This is getting waaaaaay to technical for the asked question
The thread starter should use rsnapshot for now and read some more about backups&filecorruption/bitrot to decide if he needs more then only a backup (just a backup goes a long way and is much better then most people have).
Inline my comments for further technical discussion I tried to stay away from, this doesn't help the thread starter.
Alles anzeigen@GreenBean Some of your comments are wrong and rsnapshot is not as vulnerable to viruses.
I'm not saying rsnapshot is specifically vulnerable, at least that was not my intention, it great. (i'm doing the same thing with a script that also does considers moved/renamed files).
Topic starter is talking about a single station solution, unless you have rsnapshot disconnected its prone to nasties, I still stand with my statement.
If you don't share any of the backup volume, how is the virus going to ruin the rsnapshot backups?
It feels like you are changing to context here. The topic starter is talking about a single station setup, you seem to be talking about a mutlistation station setup. That is a completly different discussion
I have rsnapshot running at a school I help and they have been hit by the crypto virus. Guess how many files we lost? None that were older than 1 hour because rsnapshot was setup to take hourly backups.
Unless you have rsnapshot running on a different computer you just had a lot of luck.
The first copy to the backup drive is not a hard link. ...
That why I said "when snapshotting'
How do you hard link across drives??
I didn't say you should or could... why are you saying this?
You can't. Only unchanged future snapshots will be hard linked to the first copy.
Thats what i basically mentioned already.
So, a virus removing the file will not ruin your backup.
removing the file itself from a complete backup removes it from from any linked snapshot, doesn't matter if its a user, sector error or anything else.
And yes, you use more than 50% but not much more unless you are constantly editing videos. Most people don't have 100% full drives. So, rsnapshot to another drive of the same size usually works well.
Every change adds the storage of the complete size of the changed file. 50% is very unrealistig when people have media files, do video edditing, raname files, move files, etc.
Changing a full-HD homevideo for example adds the full size to the backup lets say 12 gb extra storage
With remotemount, you can rsnapshot to a remote server as well.
Sure, what doesn't work remotely these days?
I will say once again that rsnapshot and snapraid are not competing services. snapraid is not backup and rsnapshot is not bitrot protection/redundancy. They can work very well together.
I said the same thing and still believe the topic starter's best choice is rsnapshot as adviced earlier.
Alles anzeigen1. RAID is not a backup. If it has the word/acronym/phrase "RAID" in it, it is not a backup solution and you are risking losing all of your data. Yes, this means SnapRAID is NOT A FREAKING BACKUP.
We already made that clear, was unnecessary to mention it again.
p.s. It can remove the need for snapshot backups at x intervals though and in that manner replace a part of your backup. In my riskcalculation i'm using it to replace my daily b's and accepting the increased consequences. Its all about risk and impacts.
2. Using rsnapshot for backup is only useful if it creates a complete copy of the data for you to disconnect and store elsewhere. If the "backup" drive remains connected to your system, it isn't a backup.
Mostly agreed, but even a local backup is still a backup.
3. When it comes to backups, the correct strategy is 3-2-1. Three copies of all your data, in Two different formats, One of which is off-site. That could be spare drives and cloud storage, spare drives and tape, tape and cloud storage, etc. Personally I'm using a remote NAS at my parents' house about 4 hours away (therefore protected in case of most natural disasters) that uses Syncthing to keep up to date, and ZFS snapshots at both ends to allow for things like crypto virus recovery. Considering using Amazon Cloud Drive to add another layer.
There are other approaches to that might be better or worse, but 321 is certainly not the only approach.
This is only for sensitive/personal data like tax receipts from TurboTax, family photos, CrashPlan backups for all the PCs, personal documents, etc. I also throw in my ebook collection and config files for the routers switches and access points in my lab, because it's useful data that is low volume.
I'm backupping everything here for the family, except my commercial-media(games, video, music, books, etc).
The rest tends to be OS install ISOs, media files, and other bulk data that I can re-download or re-rip if needed. (For media, re-rips from original constitutes the second format anyhow.)
Same here
So far the only thing here that really comes close to an actual backup is rsnapshot, and I can't even say that's the case if it uses hard links and expects to be connected to the original machine. I don't know, I've never installed it.
It can push & pull, depending on your setup. But its been a long time since I used it, wasn't very good with renamed files, etc.
I don't have time to respond to every comment. Yes, it was a single station but I recommended rsnapshot'ing from drive A to drive B. If you only share drive A, how would anything erase what is on drive B (other than a Linux virus)? If the file is deleted on drive A, it is not deleted from every backup on drive B as you can see from backup.
$ rm file1
aaron@omv3dev:/media/8195fd34-5361-4328-ae5f-59ad44424134/test1$ ls -al ../test2/plugins/test1/daily.0/
total 0
drwxrwsr-x 2 root users 18 Feb 8 10:04 .
drwxrwsr-x 5 root users 48 Feb 8 10:04 ..
-rw-r--r-- 3 aaron users 0 Feb 8 09:51 file2
aaron@omv3dev:/media/8195fd34-5361-4328-ae5f-59ad44424134/test1$ ls -al ../test2/plugins/test1/daily.1/
total 0
drwxrwsr-x 2 root users 30 Feb 8 10:04 .
drwxrwsr-x 5 root users 48 Feb 8 10:04 ..
-rw-r--r-- 2 aaron users 0 Feb 8 09:50 file1
-rw-r--r-- 3 aaron users 0 Feb 8 09:51 file2
aaron@omv3dev:/media/8195fd34-5361-4328-ae5f-59ad44424134/test1$ ls -al ../test2/plugins/test1/daily.2/
total 0
drwxrwsr-x 2 root users 30 Feb 8 09:54 .
drwxrwsr-x 5 root users 48 Feb 8 10:04 ..
-rw-r--r-- 2 aaron users 0 Feb 8 09:50 file1
-rw-r--r-- 3 aaron users 0 Feb 8 09:51 file2
Alles anzeigen
I call this pretty safe backup unless the system fails destroying both drives at the same time. Which is why I backup to a remote server as well. If the building burns down, I still have my offsite tape. What am I missing??
Just for reference on how much additional space rsnapshot might use in a typical situation... I am backing up three 4TB drives (with 6.2 TB between the three) with rsnapshot to one 8TB drive. It is mostly Linux ISOs, movies, and pictures. The 8 TB drive is using 6.5 TB.
I don't have time for such discussions either, I prefer discussions where someone (preferably me) learns something. This isn't such a discussion.
There are so many reasons that a local backup can get whipped/damaged, a few things that comes to mind:
Trusting only on local backups is really insane, doing a remote backups is sane.
I think you are misinterpreting my first message and your last reply has a totally different context especially mentioning the remote backup. At this point its not even clear to me at what point you disagree.
We both advice rsnapshot from the given options... great! Case closed
Wow, Guys !
I asked a little ans simple question and I'm getting lots and lots of very usefull information.
I'm sorry if you're not learning anything, but I do and you're making me understang things
so I can make better choices. So thank you.
To me, this is much better than spending hours, days and even weeks on the net trying to fond something.
As I told Tinh_x7 on another board, I'll be pretty busy in the next few days. But, be sure I'll read everything carefully as soon as I come back.
Oh ! for those who care, I'm quitting RPi2 for a real computer. RPI2 has already reached it's limits. So be glad !
Wow, Guys !
Guys?!?
Your welcome, nice to see such enthousiastic replies.
p.s. Sad to see that cute RPI leaving though, might be usefull for an offsite backup *ducks and runs for cover*.
Sie haben noch kein Benutzerkonto auf unserer Seite? Registrieren Sie sich kostenlos und nehmen Sie an unserer Community teil!