Thread 105638333

reminder raid isn't backup.

its backupper than no raid

Reminder that you're just a larping faggot if your "backups" are in
>the same drive
>the same computer
>the same building
>the same city
>the same country
>the same hemisphere

>>105638364
What is 3-2-1?

>>105638364
>the same planet
Why even bother if your backup drive isn't on Mars? How is it gonna survive the next world war?

>>105638333 (OP)
>There is only one type of raid
Are you special?

>>105638382
There's no form of RAID that is a backup.

>>105638380
A satellite in GSO should be enough. I wonder if you could also protect it from solar flares

>>105638333 (OP)
>drive fails
>you still have another copy
it's a form of backup. you need multiple forms in order to be able to sleep properly at night though

>>105638450
It's not a form of backup, it's a form of redundancy.

Backups are a mistake. Imagine if one day you lost all your data. That would be a blessing.

>>105638382
raid 1 isn't a backup.

>>105638333 (OP)
yes it is
>b-but it can be damaged
so can a backup
>but you need one off site
okay give me your address

>>105638511
this shit pisses me off because they are basically throwing away the colors. its one thing if they dont need them i guess but it feels like a waste to not at least vaccum up some of the colors of sand.

>>105638894
pedo

>>105638894
>so can a backup
A backup isn't damaged in real time.

>>105638902
>The sand is collected in a jar which is then wrapped in silk and transported to a river (or any place with moving water), where it is released back into nature to disperse the healing energies of the mandala to sentient beings in water and throughout the world.

I've also heard of some monks that sort the sand, a task as equally arduous as constructing the mandala grain by grain in the first place.

>>105638333 (OP)
It's by definition a backup, fuck off

>>105639034
It isn't. It's drive redundancy.

>>105638333 (OP)
Czech'd

Backups are for cowards and brainlets.

>>105639053
>I copied a file to another part of the disk
>It's not a backup anon!
>I copied a file to another disk in the same machine
>It's not a backup anon!
>I copied a file to another disk in a different machine
>Now it's a backup anon!
No, all forms of redundancy are backups, or more accurately backups are just another term for redundancy. Backing it up to another folder is just having logical redundancy, to another drive is just having drive redundancy, to another machine is just having machine redundancy, to another geographic location is just having geographic redundancy, etc.

>>105639134
>>I copied a file to another part of the disk
That's not how RAID works.
>>I copied a file to another disk in the same machine
That's not how RAID works.

>>105639142
whether it is a file or not is irrelevant to my strawman

>>105639146
Please pick a file in your RAID filesystem, overwrite all of the bytes in the file with 0x00 and then recover the file from your RAID "backup".

>>105639156
Can't be done with normal block level RAID, but can be trivially done on a higher level with a filesystem. RAID is a live backup of data from one drive to another in the same machine, it protects from one drive dying but not higher level errors with the filesystem or extreme problems with the underlying machine. You need logical redundancy (e.g. copying the file to another filesystem) or machine redundancy (e.g. copying the file to another machine) to satisfy that property.
Anyways for an example of a higher level filesystem that implements snapshots doing what you want.
>dd if=/dev/urandom of=file
>zfs snapshot disk@anonisafag
>dd if=/dev/zero of=file
>zfs rollback disk@anonisafag

>>105638333 (OP)
Backups are a social construct. When the nukes start flying nothing is going to save your data.

>>105638911
>sees a child
>thinks of sex
nigga, you're the pedo

>>105639216
you're white you're not allowed to say that word

>>105639276
gif got me considering gills and if he would absorb any of that via the mouth

>>105639192
Oh wow, anon. You're such an insightful and intelligent little boy.

>>105639190
Wow, almost like RAID provided no backup functionality and you needed to use a separate concept (a backup) to recover a file or set of files!

>>105639288
Really? That's what made you laugh? A fish having gills and a cig in its mouth?

>>105639305
>laugh
???

>>105639309
>got me
implies laughter

>>105639190
So basically, your RAID provides you absolutely no backup of your files and only gives you disk redundancy? Wow, I could have not seen this one coming.

>>105639338
"got me considering" was the intention, like "has me thinking". But I do normally say "that got me bad" for what you mean though.

>>105639304
>>105639345
This is retarded mental gymnastics, if a drive dies RAID protected you by backing up your bytes to another drive. If a machine dies obviously it doesn't protect you, in the same manner that if your house burns down you lose despite cross-machine redundancy, or if the feds confiscate all your hard drives across the entire goddamn country you lose despite geographic redundancy. Honestly the best backup/redundancy (because they're the same thing) solution is to upload the data directly to the Bitcoin or Ethereum blockchain, I guarantee you that it'll remain there short of an apocalypse. It all depends on your risk tolerance, the average person is perfectly fine copying their files to a different folder and most /g/anons are perfectly fine using a simple btrfs or zfs pool.

All of this is just various levels of redundancy, I swear you /r/Datahoarder redditors just live off buzzwords and don't think for yourself.

There is no difference between a redundant copy and a backup!

>>105639356
>in the same manner that if your house burns down you lose despite cross-machine redundancy
How do you implement 3-2-1 backups with your chosen backup solution of RAID?

>>105638382
If your raid fails your data is gone. It's fault tolerant not a backup unless your raid is a copy of your data in which case it then is a backup.

>>105638511
This feels like the opposite of those TikTok driveway pressure cleaning videos :(

>>105639356
>There is no difference between a redundant copy and a backup!
If RAID is a copy of your file, you should be able to edit the file destructively and then restore it from another disk on your RAID. But you can't do that because you haven't copied any files, you're just mirroring bits.

>>105639293
Thank you. :)

>>105639374
GO BACK FAGGOT

>>105639385
Anon, if you edit the file destructively on a RAID system, you are indeed telling the operating system to overwrite all backups with that new data. The same way how if you have a backup on a different drive and you plug it in and overwrite everything in a sync, you likely have destroyed some data along the way (unless you had snapshots, which, may I remind you, are just another form of backup for a different problem domain). It's a game of probability and risk, not a gospel.

>>105639411
>Anon, if you edit the file destructively on a RAID system, you are indeed telling the operating system to overwrite all backups with that new data.
So, it's not a backup then. You do not have redundant copies of the file. You have a single copy of the file that's mirrored between disks and any destructive editing, corruption or accidental deletion will instantly nuke all of your backups. You lose that file and you cannot restore it.

I can't believe someone honestly thinks that you have a backup solution when you can't restore any lost data.

>>105638333 (OP)
Yes, and?
>See /g/tards falling for the obvious bait

>>105639434
I'm convinced my point cannot be made clear to you, all I can say is by definition there are redundant copies of the file if it is mirrored between disks, otherwise how can it be in two places at the same time? Likewise, you can restore lost data as long as it has been lost due to drive corruption, which is bar none the most common source of corruption beyond user error (which can be solved logically through filesystem snapshots). If you additionally want to secure yourself against the machine committing suicide and randomly overwriting bytes, you can then move the data to a different machine. If you additionally want to secure yourself against your house burning down, you can move it offsite.

>>105639454
>by definition there are redundant copies of the file if it is mirrored between disks, otherwise how can it be in two places at the same time?
That's not even how RAID works. RAID doesn't give a shit about files. It just mirrors bits. There's no copies of files, there's just redundancy information of bits.

>bar none the most common source of corruption beyond user error
This is what we call "not the most common source of corruption". The most common source of corruption will destroy your "backed up" data in a RAID array.

Again, RAID is not backup. You can't restore files from a RAID array. RAID is disk redundancy. It stripes bits (not files) in case a disk goes offline so that you can still access your single copies of files you have on the array.

>>105638380
>>105638414
Still gets fucked by the sun going supernova.
>he didn't put a backup HDD on the voyager 1
shiggy diggy

>>105639482
>RAID doesn't give a shit about files. It just mirrors bits.
what exactly do you think files are anyways? On Unix-based operating systems they are a series of bits. It's beside the point anyways, file or byte is equivalent to the end user since files are all they see (from a PC perspective at least, mobile users are a different breed).

>This is what we call "not the most common source of corruption". The most common source of corruption will destroy your "backed up" data in a RAID array.
Apparently you don't understand the concept of exclusion. Anyways if a disk dies with a functioning RAID system, you can sleep easy knowing your data isn't gone! Somehow, that clear redundancy and security against a potential fault is not in any way a copy of data to a separate location!

>>105638333 (OP)
The statement is flawed because the definition of backup is unclear.

>>105639513
>what exactly do you think files are anyways?
A very specific collection of bits that make up a single logical unit on the filesystem. And RAID doesn't give a shit about this. Your parity data is not a file. It's not even necessarily the same bit because it's a parity bit, not a copy bit.

>>105639547
Parity bits only apply to RAID-5 and RAID-6 (at least for common modes), and if you're really going to claim that error correction codes are not a form of redundancy I dunno what I am going to do with you anon. RAID-1 is literally just copying bytes over to the other drive. In both cases it is a backup, regardless of whether you believe it to be or not.

>>105639561
>Parity bits only apply to RAID-5 and RAID-6
So, RAID. Or is RAID only backup if using something other than RAID 5 or 6?

>error correction codes are not a form of redundancy
Sorry, I thought the argument was that there are "redundant copies of the file" in a RAID system, not just parity data for blocks.

>In both cases it is a backup, regardless of whether you believe it to be or not.
Run rm -rf / and then restore your RAID backup then.

Harddrives are so expensive :(

>>105639571
>Sorry, I thought the argument was that there are "redundant copies of the file" in a RAID system, not just parity data for blocks.
While Error Correction codes are not actual copies, they are functionally equivalent to them (though yes you identified a flaw in my argument). They are a more effective solution than blind copying for a variety of reasons and serve the exact same purpose of offering redundancy. If you are really going to claim that have a n of m set where you can lose an arbitrary (m - n) members of the set and still recover the entire set is not in any way redundant or effectively a copy, idk.

>Run rm -rf / and then restore your RAID backup then.
Smash your backup hard drive and restore your backup then. That is not the problem RAID solves.

>>105639598
>Smash your backup hard drive and restore your backup then.
You do not need to restore a backup in this scenario? You've lost a single copy of the files but all of your data is still intact. You just need to reinitialise your backups on a new drive.

>>105638894
It's about malware infecting your machine and wrecking your data.
Like EVERY RANSOMWARE IN EXISTENCE does. They all go for network shares as well.

>>105639598
>Smash your backup hard drive and restore your backup then
easy
>buy new HDD
>run a backup

>>105639611
Alright smash all existing backup hard drives and the hard drive you're currently using for the live data then for my hypothetical retort.

>>105639623
Well, in this scenario I would restore them from my offsite backup.

You realise that you're pretty effectively proving that RAID is not a backup, right? Your entire scenario requires you to lose all of your data at once, which is what happens in a RAID with one bad write.

>>105639617
unless i physically have access to a 2nd secure location(note, most people dont even have a single one) I cannot realistically back up my data.

>>105639634
Offsite backups are part of your existing backup hard drives, but yes you are correct that RAID does not protect you from deleting your own files. It is still a goddamn backup by definition which is the crux of this dumb debate.

For the sake of argument, because I feel we are debating two separate things here, what is your definition of a backup? Mine is "a particular redundant storage of data such that data can be restored after data loss". If it protects you from data loss by making redundant copies (or error codes too, which are functionally equivalent to copies) then it is a backup of some form.

>>105638333 (OP)
>Back up
Lol, lmao even. I have 2 drives on my Nas and I don't give a fuck, will probably get das at some point to do periodical backups but backing up constantly is a meme.

>>105639661
>For the sake of argument, because I feel we are debating two separate things here, what is your definition of a backup?
A redundant copy of files that you can restore after a disaster of any sorts has befallen your data.

>>105639661
his definition is
>some shit only the richest people on earth could ever afford

>>105639657
>back up data to a HDD
>unplug it
>throw it into the car

>>105639670
By that definition only RAID-1 can be considered a backup, unless you consider error codes to be redundant copies (which they aren't, but like I said they might as well be).

>>105639677
No because you can't restore files from RAID 1. You rm -rf the wrong directory and it's gone.

>>105639657
You can just locally encrypt the backup data and use pretty much any storage service on the world for backups. Alternatively, grab a Raspberry Pi and an external HDD, plug it in your mom's house and back up to that.

>>105639683
To quote,
>after a disaster of any sorts has befallen your data.
Would you not consider a drive committing seppuku to be a disaster of some sort?

>>105639671
My offsite backup is like $80 per year. I think you have a vastly inflated view of how expensive backing up data is.

>>105639674
>yes goy drive around with all of your porn and personal in your car, those never get stolen
just because I dont have anything illegal doesn't mean I want to give some jogger 50 terabytes of loli and personal data.
>w-well you could encrypt them!!
yawn
>>105639687
>no no listen to me goy, just give all your data to your mom, thats the ticket

>>105639692
>paying a subscription for a backup.
your data is not private.

>>105639692
lol the most affordable option for me beyond a second house is a couple hundred a month in a colocation, though I am a bit of a hoarder so I'm likely an extreme case.

>>105639695
>your data is not private.
If he encrypts the data, he's fine as long as he didn't encrypt it with a easy to guess password.

you are still looking at buying a new hard drive every month for the cost of an off site back up on some jews computer who totally wont sell it to the NSA for later decrypting he promises.

>>105639691
Any sorts?

>>105639697
Backblaze still has unlimited data.

>>105639791
I can't remember why I decided against Backblaze when looking into them in the past, I guess I'll look into them again.

>>105639791
>>105639827
looking at this i can see why you would decide against backblaze, their fucking landing page is a mess and looks programmed and written by a jeet with a good handle on english. theres basically no information at all about how it works and what the usage limits are (there have to be usage limits, otherwise whats to stop me from just putting the entire internet in my personal back up at their expense?) trying to figure out their terms without having to break open their TOS is enough to already irritate me and i dont imagine its going to get any better if and when i do.

>>105639856
>otherwise whats to stop me from just putting the entire internet in my personal back up at their expense
Do you have an entire Internet's worth of hard drives at your disposal?

>>105639727
What has this even to do anything?
If you have some old shit HDD lying around and do a backup on it and put it into a drawer, you are covered for your personal fuck ups, updates, hardware breaking or malware wrecking your data.
>b-but what if my house burns down
cool, buy some travel safe with decent fire rating and put it somewhere where it isn't in the middle of flammable shit.
>b-but what if i live in Israel and an Iranian hypersonic rocket hits my building
bad luck
>b-but what if i am living near a nuclear plant and it has a meltdown and explodes?
bad luck
>>105639695
>b-but what if i rape children and make videos of me shoving my cock into the assholes of whining 4yo boys
then you take the rope and accept gods judgement

Just because you can imagine cases where a backup drive fails, it doesn't turn a RAID, that doesn't even protect you from an rm -rf /, into a backup.

>>105639862
why would I need that many?

>>105639519
The point of the statement is to differentiate between two separate concepts in this context.
The slogan is often used by people to signal their supposed understanding, even when it's entirely wrong or completely unwarranted.
On this board, the slogan is often used as bait.

>>105639870
Because it backs up your local data, not arbitrary data that's on the Internet.

>>105639868
go moshe, you beat that pile of straw!

>>105639695
>But what if i do X? And don't give me the obvious solution Y!

>>105639876
so what? it has to do that through the internet to files I tell it, and according to it I get any number of work stations. is it going to personally log and ID all of my hdd serial numbers and block me out? that would mean their claim that I have unlimited backup data to be false
>>105639886
at the end of the day the point of these statements is that some people can barely even afford raid. let alone the cost of a real backup.

>>105639896
>that would mean their claim that I have unlimited backup data to be false
Backup data means that it's a copy of your data. Not some random data that you do not have.

Holy fucking shit you're stupid.

>>105639944
the only thing that makes data my data is its on my hardware anon. are you a retard? I can put any data I want on my own hardware. I could make 365 back ups of data. there has to be an actual physical limit here and they wont say what it is.

>>105639944
He is a pedophile who jerks off to videos of children getting raped.
Of course he is dumb as a brick.

>>105640048
The limit is whatever storage you have on your computer since it's a backup service, not a file storage service.

>>105640112
it says theres unlimited work stations. that means if I have any number of computers i can game the system. where
are
the
limits?

>>105638377
0

>>105640098
>I have no arguments so I'm just gonna call this guy what I actually am.
t. (((you)))

>>105640169
I kneel

>>105638382
>delete critical file
>can't recover it
it's not a backup.

>>105638333 (OP)
Reminder:

I took the no raid pill.
it's not worth it unless you need 24/7 uptime.

>>105640161
The personal backup is billed per computer, genius. Unlimited computers = unlimited costs.

>>105639346
Ok, fair enough. My bad.

>>105640248
>No restrictions on number of workstations
according to their own pricing
if this means that ACKSHULLY WE DO CHARGE YOU IT MERELY MEANS THAT WE ALLOW YOU TO PAY US MORE FOR EACH STATION
then they're Jewish liars and I wont be patronizing false advertisers.

>>105640351
It's not false advertising if you can't fucking read.

>>105640411
>its not false advertising
>value menu!! 2 in one
>what do you mean buy 2 for one, no it clearly says you can buy 2 in one order
t. (((you)))
anyway I have 5 workstations so this shit would literally cost me 500 a year. more if they dont throw in phones for free.

>>105640441
Where the fuck does it say that you get unlimited computers for a single price?

>>105640450
I already posted that
>No restrictions on number of workstations
check marked on all categories.

>>105638894
ToT

>>105640474
And that doesn't mean "unlimited for a single price".

>>105640511
>its not false advertising
>value menu!! 2 in one
>what do you mean buy 2 for one, no it clearly says you can buy 2 in one order
t. (((you)))

>>105640532
It clearly says that pricing is per computer and to contact sales if you're at more than 50+ computers for bulk pricing.

>>105638894
sexo

>>105640589
>it clearly says somewhere else* tm that ackshully i twast REALLY two for 1 goy
t.(((you)))

>>105638894
child models aren't allowed on 4cuck

>>105640761
its a checkem reaction image I dont save 3djb slop coom brained jeetard

>>105640761
child models are allowed on techloligy

>>105638911
>>105640761
>sees a child, fully dressed, in a non-sexual situation
>immediately thinks about shoving his dick inside her mouth or vagina
Why are Americans like that?

>>105640843
>projecting

>>105640200
>[RAID is] not worth it unless you need 24/7 uptime.
i don't care about uptime. i care about not losing data to drive failure.

>>105641068
>i care about not losing data to drive failure.
>oh no, I lost a day of data
ok. whatever. I do daily backups every day. If I feel like I'm doing something data critical I can reschedule my backup to the very moment I feel like as well.

>>105638894
ToT

>>105638511
shouldnt video taping the process completely negate the point

now the art is immortalized and cannot ever be relinquished

>>105641414
An exception is made to film the process itself not necessarily just the artwork. They'll never see it again anyway so to them it is as good as lost forever. And in reality, that is the case anyway. This video will not last forever, nor will these posts.

>>105639856
The version of backblaze with unlimited storage is a bit jank to have backup your server. I think it's only available on windows and mac, and you can't backup network drives. So you would need to have it run on your desktop, or maybe have a windows vm and do some shigging to get your nas to show up as a local drive.
https://youtu.be/cx1oyyKvnBE?si=QF_ax29etcndYxCX&t=1007

>>105641641
I back up my NAS to external drives connected to my Mac and then back that entire shebang to Backblaze.

>>105641641
I think the work around for that has been iscsi drives to your NAS so it looks like a physical disk on your desktop for the application.

>>105639345
isn't a backup redundancy?

>>105638894
who is this semen demon?

>>105638333 (OP)
No, but I use RAID 1 to store Backups (in versions as required) so if one drive fails I still have the data on the other drive.

>>105643150
No, unless you keep several copies of identical data and not just one copy before you change some data.

>>105638894
last try for cunny sauce

>>105638333 (OP)
Who has the most autistic back up system? mine:
>2tb external drive "active", has most important school work. projects, files, other shit I've saved over the decades; this travels with me
>2tb external drive "backup" that only serves as synctoy backup for "active" drive
>2tb ssd clone of "backup" inside desktop for fast access
>nas with 2x14tb drives, 2 paritions, 10 and 2tb:
>2x2tb partitions clones of "backup"
>2x10tb partitions throwaway data like jellyfin tv shows and roms
>1x18tb mybook as clone of 14tb nas drive, held offsite at work or my car
By my logic my most important 2tb adhere to 3-2-1 with some added redundancy, am I doing ok?

>>105638894
name?

>>105638481
And backups are redundancy of your data

>>105647252
>>105646227
>>105643335
see >>105640793
you fucking freaks

>>105647482
Yes, backups are redundant copies of data. RAID is disk redundancy. RAID is not backup.

>>105638333 (OP)
Yeah but RAID+snapshots = backup