I have some NAS boxes, of differing capacities, from 2TB to 22TB. As someone who started working with computers back in the 1980s, I am acutely aware that unless you have at least two separate (ideally physically and geographically) backups, you will, at some stage, lose data.
There is around 10TB of files, some large, some small, and it would be extremely inconvenient to lose any of it.
Currently, the master is on the largest box (22TB, but only using 10TB), and is backed up across the other NAS boxes. All of the capacities quoted are "available space" when RAID is used on the boxes - the 22TB box actually has 4x8TB drives, for example.
At some stage, I will run out of room on the "backup" NAS devices, so I am looking at ways to let me sleep soundly at night without worrying.
I have a couple of external USB Blu-Ray writers, and a very large box of blank media, including BD-XL, DVD and CD. Don't really want to back it up at around 600MB per disc, so unlikely to use CDs![:D]( "Very Happy")
The idea is that I copy the files onto blank media, then store that media elsewhere (obviously after I have verified it, and read the files on a different drive). This will give me off-site backups.
I have sufficient local (non-NAS) storage to create a 'staged' set of files of up to 120GB, which I think is larger than the capacity of a BD-XL disk.
The data is static, so the off-line copy does not need to be changed, just added to, by using additional discs.
From what I have read so far, the steps are to create an ISO image from the files, and then write that image to the medium.
However, from what I have also read, there are size limits to the ISO images which are likely to cause me issues, as allegedly volumes over 4.4GB are not allowed, so I would have to split (and then rejoin when recovering) files which exceed that size.
Does anyone have practical experience of this under linux (ideally on a Pi, but I realise managing that much data might be a bit "niche") and have any guidance to offer?
My alternative would be to invest somewhat heavily in additional storage devices which get populated on-site, then taken away. Obviously there are issues with keeping them up to date, but it would be better than no backup, and thanks to rsync, would be a low-effort (but high-cost) solution.
There is around 10TB of files, some large, some small, and it would be extremely inconvenient to lose any of it.
Currently, the master is on the largest box (22TB, but only using 10TB), and is backed up across the other NAS boxes. All of the capacities quoted are "available space" when RAID is used on the boxes - the 22TB box actually has 4x8TB drives, for example.
At some stage, I will run out of room on the "backup" NAS devices, so I am looking at ways to let me sleep soundly at night without worrying.
I have a couple of external USB Blu-Ray writers, and a very large box of blank media, including BD-XL, DVD and CD. Don't really want to back it up at around 600MB per disc, so unlikely to use CDs
The idea is that I copy the files onto blank media, then store that media elsewhere (obviously after I have verified it, and read the files on a different drive). This will give me off-site backups.
I have sufficient local (non-NAS) storage to create a 'staged' set of files of up to 120GB, which I think is larger than the capacity of a BD-XL disk.
The data is static, so the off-line copy does not need to be changed, just added to, by using additional discs.
From what I have read so far, the steps are to create an ISO image from the files, and then write that image to the medium.
However, from what I have also read, there are size limits to the ISO images which are likely to cause me issues, as allegedly volumes over 4.4GB are not allowed, so I would have to split (and then rejoin when recovering) files which exceed that size.
Does anyone have practical experience of this under linux (ideally on a Pi, but I realise managing that much data might be a bit "niche") and have any guidance to offer?
My alternative would be to invest somewhat heavily in additional storage devices which get populated on-site, then taken away. Obviously there are issues with keeping them up to date, but it would be better than no backup, and thanks to rsync, would be a low-effort (but high-cost) solution.
Statistics: Posted by SteveSpencer — Mon Oct 28, 2024 1:03 pm — Replies 1 — Views 38