How do I back up a NAS?

It’s the same data on both disks...true. But if there’s a lightning strike and it gets fried, both disks get fried.

 

Re: mirror (or any other raid), whilst it is not a 'backup', it is a contingency against the most common cause of data loss - drive failure. And whilst deleting data would indeed delete off both, I would hazard a guess that most of us add music, and do not delete it, and if that is a concern you can always change permissions on the share so you cannot delete stuff.

I add files to my NAS via ftp, which makes deletions, accidental or otherwise, a positive action so impossible to do with clumsy fingers.

I should also point out that even if files were deleted accidentally, if you notice before making any significant writes to the disks there is a VERY good chance you can recover them without much fuss.

My 2p!

 

I consider my NAS a backup for my music, as I have all my music on a partitioned drive on my laptop, and back it up to the NAS, which I can then use as a media server.

 

Yup, if I wasnt so OCD about space on my laptop I would do the same. My NAS is actually in a cabin/office in our back garden, so technically off site too!

 

You know, that's not a bad idea! Maybe I'll set one up in my garage which is 30-40 feet from my house. Even if the house burns down I've got a good shot at the garage staying safe

 

Best choices:

• Backup/Synch to another NAS using schedule
• Synch to USB hard drive and rotate
• Backup to PC using schedule

 

If your NAS has two or more drives, just run RAID.

 

Raid is NOT a backup.

Again...repeat after me... Raid is NOT a backup.

 

Again, some people refer to 'backups' in terms of redundancy, so having raid may well be a suitable 'backup' solution for some, like me

 

Get yourself a DAS raid1.

 

It's an illusion because a RAID exist to provide fault tolerance, not redundancy and certainly not backup. Consider this: The probability for a disk fault increase with each disk added to the array, a RAID 5 will enable the system to recover from a fault in ONE of the array drives. Do you see what is the problem now and why companies still back up their RAID storage to tapes or the cloud?

 

"The cloud" is just someone else's computer. Usually with no obligation or liability to provide the advertised service.

A backup protects against the primary computer being stolen, catching on fire, accidental deletion or corruption, or the entire drive being encrypted by ransomware.

RAID protects against most single drive failures, but requires informed use. Google "RAID 5 write hole". A raid array is often not portable to another hard drive controller or enclosure.

 

I've got a bit more than 14TB of data. Wonder if any cloud solutions would be worthy for me to consider.

The aforementioned Amazon one is unfortunately off-limits to me due to the fact that it's only available to Central Canada and not Eastern Canada.

Any ideas of services you guys have experience in?

 

Data breaches? So what . . . we should be afraid that nefarious hackers will copy our music files stored in the cloud? I don’t think this is a major concern.

Dismissing the cloud as nothing more than a bunch of drives in another location reveals a lack of understanding about exactly what cloud storage actually is and how it works and how it’s secured.

You’re using tape drives to do backups? Have you ever had to restored from tape? I have. It’s a laborious, unpleasant and unreliable process and technology. It’s certainly not a technology for reliable or efficient use in home environments by end users who never normally use tape and who therefore aren’t familiar with its difficulties, storage requirements for filled tapes, drive maintenance, and so on.

I think the bigger concern for multi-terabyte backups to the cloud is the cost to move all that data through a Internet service account that may have a monthly 250GB limit (or less). In general, costs for over-limit data runs upwards of $3-$5/GB from some providers. Forum members will be smart to check with their ISPs to find out exactly what an initial backup to the cloud will actually cost.

 

You know nothing about my knowledge of the cloud. In my corporate life, I deal with customer's data on the cloud regularly. As most of this is HIPAA related data I'm painfully aware of data breaches occurring in cloud storage. Anyone with the slightest bit of curiosity and an internet connection can find volumes of information on the architecture and distribution of data on network storage. We have hundreds of Wikipedia geniuses on this forum alone. The cloud IS a bunch of drives sitting in another/multiple locations and the OP specifically asked about local storage once cloud storage had been suggested.

I have thousands of concert photos and digitized films and recordings that I have made at concerts all over North America. I'm extremely concerned about them getting into other people's hands. They are stored on multiple types of media and tape is just one of them. As media storage space is not a concern, I have multiple sets of backups in several locations. The tapes contents do not change and are only there as an additional component of a thorough backup scheme. They are tested regularly and refreshed/replaced as necessary as are all my backup media. I can't even remember the last time I "lost" something to the extent that I had to restore from tape. None of these "media" servers or workstations are connected to the internet.

My son uses a number of cloud services and seems reasonably happy with them but also keeps his more sensitive information offline. I'm not dismissing the use of cloud storage in any way, just suggesting care in putting all your storage eggs in one basket.

 

Actually, from reading that post, I now know quite a bit about your knowledge of cloud computing and find it a tad lacking. My favorite part is where you conflate a data breach of medical records to "'the cloud' isn't safe, better keep your concert tapes at home".

 

I kept it simple for you internet whiz kids. I have to follow government regulated procedures for medical data storage and take classes and tests regularly. I'm quite aware of a number of rather severe cloud data breaches that rarely make it to public knowledge and the millions of dollars of fines incurred by like companies in my field that have been responsible. The cloud is only as secure as the company involved makes it. I used my collection as an example of data I wouldn't put at risk. There are many other types as well. I didn't come here to get into a bigger dick contest with anyone.

I love when people take one line out of context and make it look like you are saying something else. You should write for Yahoo or CNN. Please take this opportunity to get in the last word. It's all yours.........

 

Cloud storage is quick to access and for 4T not expensive. You don't have to worry about home disaster ruining your back-up copy either or for that matter just failure of those back-up drives, which could happen. Cloud services have lots of redundancy built in and is included in their package, so back-up drive issues should never be a concern.

 

What is a good price for 4TB of online storage? Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places.

 

But you did post dismissively about cloud storage, and that's exactly what I reacted to. It's not necessary to promote your qualification here, and I don't think it's relevant. Cloud storage companies of all kinds deal with data breaches no doubt. Then again, on a daily basis there are far more data-breached and malware-infected computers sitting on home desktops in every country in the world each day - by many orders of magnitude - than there are secure storage cloud data breaches. Everyone on the forum is likely aware of such security concerns.

Suggesting that cloud storage is just a bunch of hard drives, or implying that nobody's data is safe, or that your worries over (photos, digitized films and recordings - presumably all under your personal copyright) are a concern of impending disaster, may be somewhat of a cart put before the horse. If there has to be a conversation in this thread or on this forum about online security, maintaining copyright security, etc., etc., then everyone on the forum will be served by it. But implying that cloud storage is less secure, in practical terms, than home storage is simply wrong unless people backing up locally go to the greatest effort to not only make redundant backups, but also multi-generational backups, as well as ensuring that off-site storage of at least one redundancy and one generation is unerringly maintained. Maintaining absolute antivirus and anti-malware defenses are also critical for home users who are relying solely on home-based backups. Anyway, truly robust home-based backup is typically a lot more work than most people have time for, which is another reason that cloud storage and cloud backups have become so popular. Without all those steps, data backed up at home only is insecure. The cloud is here to stay.

Microsoft got fed up and sick and tired of dealing with support calls on which people were hollering about lost data.

Apple got fed up and sick and tired of dealing with support calls on which people were hollering about lost data.

And so on . . .

Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google and several other large players saw an business opportunity to create customer stickiness, expand their corporate footprints and market shares, and a variety of other advantages, and the consumer cloud and the small business cloud were born.

I personally use a variety of home-based/local and cloud-based backups to create redundancy, quick access in an emergency. I can't recall the the number of friends who've called me because they turned off iCloud, clicked the wrong button in the resulting pop-up dialog box, and ended up deleting the entire contents of a Documents folder on their local Mac OS X hard drive. Apple should be absolutely ashamed of itself for creating dangerously non-intuitive systems of that kind. Parts of the iCloud implementation verge on being criminally stupid. That said, iCloud is the worst of the cloud services. By contrast, most people don't realize how much free cloud storage is attached to their Gmail accounts. Dropbox is easier to use than iCloud. Microsoft's cloud services implementation and design is better than iCloud. Independent cloud storage providers using Amazon or Google as a back-end are inexpensive, intuitively usable and (most important) easy to use. Carbonite and others.

A local backup or two is absolutely and fundamentally important, but automated cloud backup for greater reliability through broadband access is the way to compensate for the misery that people impose upon themselves when they don't do regular local backups and the inevitable local drive failure takes place.

At the very least, Mac OS X users should ensure that Time Machine backups are backed up to another external local drive. Same goes for Windows users. If some people have turned off Mac OS and Windows automated backup features, they should turn them back on immediately. Those built-in, OS-level utility functions are the first line of defense. Everything else should flow from that.

 

In a RAID1 array you do indeed have redundancy, if one disk fails the NAS will continue to operate. The data is still intact.

What does the 'R' in 'raid' stand for?

Backups are typically for disaster recovery, and/or to keep data for a certain period which may have changed or been deleted since. Our music files do not change, and I would suspect not many people delete music without very careful consideration, I do not.

RAID1 is a perfectly reasonable, functional 'backup' of ones music files on a NAS.

 

I appreciate RAID 1 and use it, but it's not enough for backup. A lightning strike, fire, controller failure, etc. could take out both drives at the same time. And then there's accidental deletion.

 

Burn everything to DVD and/or CD, rent a storage container, and lock them up in a fireproof safe.

 

Music is on a two drive nas, running raid 1. Mirrored from an internal drive on my Mac Pro which is copied to an external drive. I figure I am pretty covered.

 

You meant the same R that appear in an acronym that was coined around the same time when the C in CD stood for compact? In the case of RAID 1 a failure of a single disk will fail the RAID. You will have to decide then what is more important, either chance accessing the data on the surviving disk, or rebuild the RAID, for which you will have to take it offline. The first option is risky because the fault could be caused by the controller which may cause a total loss of data if you continue to use the device, the second option..well, it may take some time during which the user will have plenty of time to ponder the difference between fault tolerance, redundancy and backup. RAID 5 is better but even with more than 3 disks it's still a nerve wrecking experience when the array is rebuild.

I do agree that a NAS is a perfectly valid option as a main storage of data but it should never be considered as an alternative to a more comprehensive data archiving strategy.