![]() They went from "backed up in three places" to backed up in zero places, and are now calling the cloud provider hoping that their backups had unencrypted copies in them.ģ-2-1 isn't simple, but it is good, and that's what it tries to be. The external drive was hit and then the cloud backup service happily synced the now encrypted files. Your backup strategy has been used almost verbatim by multiple institutions who got cryto-locked. In 3-2-1, in particular the media type + off-site thing, tries to "trick" you into having a backup which isn't accessible from the same system that it is backing up (i.e. It exists and is important because many backup strategies are broken and people don't realize it.įor example your own strategy treats a PC's local storage and an external drive as distinct backups when in reality you've only evaluated hardware failures when formulating it and not malicious actors. > while it works, simpler solutions also provide the same level of reliability. They're low cost, low maintenance, and while not "spinning rust" cheap, they're still within $12/100GB, and unlike spinning rust and cloud, it's a one time cost. If something breaks i can just as easily reinstall the computer/applications and restore my documents/photos.Īs for photos, i also burn identical M-disc BDXL media every so often, containing the photos taken since last archive date, and store the copies in different locations. I also don't make "full computer backups". So inconvenient to lose, but not exactly critical. Most of it has been purchased, so can (hopefully) be downloaded again, and the rest has been ripped from CDs that still reside somewhere in my attic. When it comes to media backups, i honestely don't care if my iTunes library got wiped out. The same applies to documents, mostly because they're highly compressible and don't take up much space. That machine then makes 2 backups, one local, and one to another cloud. I keep all my photos in the cloud, and have a machine synchronizing photos locally. I backup my photo collection religiously. I've argued with them repeatedly about what would be critical to lose, and what would merely be inconvenient. In the end, I set up "cloud" backups (second storage media type, and long and far away), switched to Debian, and continued on my merry way. I was close to losing all of my KeepPassXC passwords and private keys due to shear idiocy. Thankfully, I didn't write anything to the boot partition, so throwing a Hail Mary and simply resizing the partitions back to their exact original sizes (thankfully x2 my TTS history was useful), allowed the root drive to mount without a hitch. ![]() So I scramble to find my backups (to decide whether or not I should figure out how to fix this), and realize that tiny little SD card was missing, and my HDD backup was completely unmountable. I completely forgot that EXT4 has a superblock at the beginning, so now it was gone, and the root partition was completely unmountable - and fsck was of no use. Foolishly, and in a rush, I thought using gparted to change the partition boundaries (shrink the root partition by 512MB from the beginning, and stretch the boot partition to 1GB from the end) was the answer. Unfortunately, the boot partition was too small, and needed to be re-sized from 512MB to 1GB. I was trying to replace my GRUB MBR bootloader for REFind's EFI so I could dualboot on a new laptop (and swap-in my old one's SSD without having to reinsall the whole system: Arch). Had 2 backups (1 SD card, 1 HDD) for my "Document" folder. That said today the most common way for a person fill offsite and separate media is to use a Cloud Backup of some kind. ![]() The rule came about because people would use the same tape library, or have multiple copies on the same SAN (often times they would have a SAN Cluster of 2 or more devices that act as 1, and because they had 2 "devices" they felt they were protected.ĭisparate media type (HDD, Tape, DVD, etc) may have some advantaged but as long as you are putting 2 copies on say your Home Desktop, and a NAS you have satisfied 2 media's even if both are using Hard drives That’s why you should always combine media.įor "same media" the key part of this is storing the data on two DIFFERENT DEVICES of different types, they both could be hard drives, but they need to be in isolated systems of different types (say a Windows System and a Synology NAS, or a FreeNAS Storage Appliance and a Linux Server, etc) In other words, you may lose two copies in the same accident. > The thing is, while keeping data on the same storage media, you may lose them due to the same hardware issues. People often confuse the Different Media, and this blog post makes it murky as well ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |