this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2025
80 points (98.8% liked)

Selfhosted

61168 readers
251 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.

  8. AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm trying to plan a better backup solution for my home server. Right now I'm using Duplicati to back up my 3 external drives, but the backup is staying on-site and on the same kind of media as the original. So, what does your backup setup and workflow look like? Discs at a friend's house? Cloud backup at a commercial provider? Magnetic tape in an underground bunker?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't think this meets the definition of 3-2-1. Which isn't a problem if it meets your requirements. Hell, I do something similar for my stuff. I have my primary NAS backed up to a secondary NAS. Both have BTRFS snapshots enabled, but the secondary has a longer retention period for snapshots. (One month vs one week). Then I have my secondary NAS mirrored to a NAS at my friends house for an offsite backup.

This is more of a 4-1-1 format.

But 3-2-1 is supposed to be:

  • Three total copies of the data. Snapshots don't count here, but the live data does.

  • On two different types of media. I.e. one backup on HDD and another on optical media or tape.

  • With at least one backup stored off site.

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I've always understood 2 as 2 physically different media - i.e., copies in different folders or partitions of the same disk is not enough to protect against failure of that disk, but a copy on a different disk does. Ideally 2 physically different systems, so failure/fire in the primary system won't corrupt/damage the backup.

Used to be that HDDs were expensive and using them as backup media would have been economically crazy, so most systems evolved backup media to be slower and cheaper. The main thing is that having /home/user/critical, /home/user/critical-backup, and /home/user/critical-backup2 satisfies 3 copies, but not 2 media.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hm I wonder why snapshots wouldn't satisfy 3. Copies on the same disk like /file, /backup1/file, /backup2/file should satisfy 3. Why wouldn't snapshots be equivalent if 3 doesn't guard against filesystem or hardware failure? Just thinking and curious to see opinion.

[–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If I'm reading your example right, I don't think that would satisfy three either. Three copies of the data on the same filesystem or even the same system doesn't satisfy the "three backups" rule. Because the only thing you're really protecting against is maybe user error. I.e. accidental deletion or modification. You're not protecting against filesystem corruption or system failure.

For a (little bit hyperbolic) example, if you put the system that has your live data on it through a wood chipper, could you use one of the other copies to recover your critical data? If yes, it counts. If no, it doesn't.

Snapshots have the same issue, because at the root a snapshot is just an additional copy of the data. There's additional automation, deduplication, and other features baked into the snapshot process but it's basically just a fancy copy function.

Edit: all of the above is also why the saying "RAID is not a backup" holds true.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Right so I guess the question of 3 is whether it means 3 backups or 3 copies. If we take it literally - 3 copies, then it does protect from user error only. If 3 backups, it protects against hardware failure too.

E: Seagate calls them copies and explicitly says the implementer can choose how the copies are distributed across the 2 media. The woodchipper scenario would be handled by the 2 media requirement.