1 |
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann |
2 |
<volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> Am 06.03.2015 um 18:10 schrieb Grant: |
4 |
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 07:51:35AM -0800, Grant wrote |
5 |
>>>>>> I have several encrypted backup repositories online and I'd like to |
6 |
>>>>>> somehow mirror that offline. I currently have about 20G of data to |
7 |
>>>>>> back up. Any ideas? Rewritable Blu-Ray? |
8 |
>>> It would seem that this is a backup to a backup. I think I read earlier |
9 |
>>> that the OP already has backups but just wants more backups just in |
10 |
>>> case. I guess one can never really have to much, I guess. |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> The idea is to have an offline backup in case all of my online stuff |
13 |
>> is infiltrated. Should I just connect a USB tape drive, USB hard |
14 |
>> drive, or USB flash drive when I want to back up the backups? Can |
15 |
>> tape be rewritten? If not, that may be the best choice so I can leave |
16 |
>> it connected all the time and not worry about it being deleted. |
17 |
>> |
18 |
> 'connected all the time'? You seem not to know how tape works? |
19 |
> |
20 |
|
21 |
To be more explicit: Typically the workflow with tape is to rotate |
22 |
your media storing each backup on a new tape, with not-in-use tapes |
23 |
stored someplace safe (often a fire safe for short-term storage, and |
24 |
off-site for long-term storage - depending on level of paranoia and |
25 |
willingness to deal with expenses). |
26 |
|
27 |
I need to look on EBay some time but tape isn't nearly as cheap as |
28 |
some seem to be making it out to be. Hard drives have sized up so |
29 |
quickly that it is no longer common to be able to buy a cheap tape |
30 |
drive that can store a few hard drives on a single tape. An LTO-6 |
31 |
tape stores 2.5TB (uncompressed) and costs about $35. A drive capable |
32 |
of writing on it costs about $2k new. |
33 |
|
34 |
Tape makes sense for its longevity, but cost-wise it only makes sense |
35 |
if you're writing a LOT of tapes. If you needed to store 10 tapes |
36 |
worth, hard drives would still be cheaper. If you had to store 20 |
37 |
tapes worth, the tapes would probably be cheaper. Obviously if you |
38 |
can get a great used deal on the tape drive and it is in good shape, |
39 |
then the economics change. |
40 |
|
41 |
So, when you're storing on tape it usually makes sense to rotate your |
42 |
media and not keep overwriting/appending the same tape over and over. |
43 |
After all, you made the big expense for the drive already, and the |
44 |
tapes are relatively cheap (though not trivially so). Hard drives are |
45 |
a different story, and since hard drives are less durable in general |
46 |
it might make sense to avoid moving them around more than you have to. |
47 |
|
48 |
If you really only have 20GB of data and it is really important, it |
49 |
looks like you can pick up LTO-1 drives for $20 and tapes for about |
50 |
the the same kind of cost. Granted, USB sticks are still going to be |
51 |
cheaper, but the reliability of tape is very good (reliability of $20 |
52 |
used drives, probably not so much but if it fails on a restore you can |
53 |
probably always buy another $20 drive as long as you can get your tape |
54 |
out of the thing). |
55 |
|
56 |
I think a lot of places have been moving more towards hard drives for |
57 |
backup though, unless it is for archival (write once, save for 10 |
58 |
years). If I want to save 1000TB to hard disk, I can buy 300x3TB |
59 |
drives and write my backups at a rate of 300xSATA speeds. If I want |
60 |
to save 1000TB to tape I need 300 tapes (much cheaper), and then |
61 |
either 1 drive stuck writing at 160MB/s (which is way cheaper than the |
62 |
hard drives), or have many drives which scales up the writing speed |
63 |
but ultimately becomes more expensive than the hard drives. The |
64 |
advantage of the tapes comes if you want to hang onto full backups for |
65 |
a long time. There is a reason companies like backblaze are using |
66 |
hard drives. |
67 |
|
68 |
I wish tape was a practical option for me, but my backups currently |
69 |
consume 3.7TB. I'd much rather have offline tapes instead of a pair |
70 |
of online hard drives storing only a few days worth of de-duped |
71 |
backups (using rsnapshot). However, the pair of drives costs only |
72 |
$200, and storing that kind of volume using tape right now would cost |
73 |
me $2100, with the need to swap tapes every time I did a backup (vs |
74 |
automated nightly backups currently). The tapes would of course be |
75 |
far more secure if some malware came along and decided to wipe things, |
76 |
and a small subset of my data is backed up to the cloud to mitigate |
77 |
against this and other localized disasters. |
78 |
|
79 |
-- |
80 |
Rich |