this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
841 points (99.0% liked)

Memes

45731 readers
1270 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 30p87@feddit.de 2 points 4 months ago (7 children)

256 GB root NVMe, 1 TB games hdd, 3* 256 GB SSD as raid 0 for local backups, 256 GB HDD for data, 256 GB SSD for VM images.

[–] Jeroen@lemmings.world 5 points 4 months ago (6 children)

Why would you put local backups on RAID 0?

[–] 30p87@feddit.de 1 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Because that's what Raid 0 for, basically adding together storage space with faster reads and writes. The local backups are basically just to have earlier versions of (system) files, incrementally every hour, for reference or restoring. In case something goes wrong with the main root NVMe and a backup SSD at the same time (eg. trojan wiping everything), I still have exactly the same backups on my "workstation" (beefier server), on also a RAID 0 of 3 1 TB HDDs. And in case the house burns down or something, there are still daily full backups on Google Cloud and Hetzner.

[–] Jeroen@lemmings.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well its for faster speeds. So I dont get why you would do a backup on a more fragile but faster storage. You described in another comment that you have many other backups, which is awesome. So good on you for taking care of everything. But yhea, using the opposite of what would be better for backups seems a bit counterintuitive to me. And to presume that it doesn't matter to use the more secure option because you have many other backups anyway, is also slightly weird since why bother in the first place then.

I don't mean any hate, you're doing way better than me. Can I ask how fast the RAID 0 gets? And how much it would be on individual drives. And how much data you have to backup daily.

Much respect for your setup, you've taken redundancy seriously and I doubt you'll ever lose anything.

[–] 30p87@feddit.de 1 points 4 months ago

The local backups are done hourly, and incrementally. They hold 2+ weeks of backups, which means I can roll back versions of packages easily, as the normal package cache is cleaned regularly. They also prevent losing individual files accidentally through weird behaviour of apps, or me.

The backups to my workstation are also done hourly, 15 minutes shifted for every device, and also incrementally. They protect against the device itself breaking, ransomware or some rouge program rm -rf'inf /, which would affect local backups too (as they're mounted in /backups, but those are mainly for providing a file history as I said.)

As most drives are slower than the 1 Gbps ethernet, the local backups are just more convenient to access and use than the one on my workstation, but otherwise exactly the same.

The .tar.xz'd backups are actual backups, considering they are not easily accessible, and need to be unpacked and externally stored.

I didn't measure the speeds of a normal SSD vs the raid - but it feels faster. Not a valid argument, of course. But in any way, I want to use it as Raid 0/Unraided for more storage space, so I can have 2 weeks of backups instead of 5 days (considering it always keeps space for 2 backups, I would have 200- GB of space instead of 700+).

The latest hourly backup is 1.3 GB in size, but if an application is used which has a single, big DB that can quickly shoot up to dozens of GB - relatively big for a homeserver hosting primarily my own stuff + a few things for my father. Like synapses' DB has 20 GB alone. On an uneventful day, that would be 31 GB. With several updates done, which means dozens of new packages in cache, that could grow to 70+GB.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)