Asklemmy

43495 readers

1458 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Whats the best way to archive data long term while on a budget ? (lemmings.world)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

79 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I just need to preserve some old data that I have on my computers, so I was wondering what would be the best way to archive stuff long term.

Blu-ray disks ? Multiple HDDs ? What do you guys suggest ?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There are much worse ways for a RAID controller to fail than suddenly not doing anything. What if it doesn't notice it has failed and continues to write to a subset of devices only? Great recipe for data corruption right there.

Bad RAID controller/HBA, CPU, RAM, Motherboard, PSU are all hardware failures that RAID does very little (if anything) to mitigate. One localised incident in any of them out could make all of your drives turn into magic smoke or bits go bad.

You cannot rely on that sort of setup for data security. It only really mitigates one relatively common hardware to push storage system uptime above 99.9%. That has a place in some scenarios where storage "only" being 99.9% available has a significant impact on total availability but you'd first have to demonstrate that that is the case.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Fair enough if using a more expansive version of hardware failure. Things like a house fire would presumably destroy a series of optical disks which would make most any in house option non-functional. Network based backups could also fail to transmit data securely and accurately as well so really any sort of replication solution needs validation of the data is of significant value. A first step in preservation is to not have the box that it came from burn down, and have a way to recover if someone does a 'sudo rm -rf /' accidentally.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Things like a house fire would presumably destroy a series of optical disks which would make most any in house option non-functional.

Well, it makes any option that only uses a single location non-functional. Having two copies at home and one at a distant location (as recommended by the 3-2-1 backup rule of thumb) mitigates this issue.

Network based backups could also fail to transmit data securely and accurately as well

Absolutely. Though the network is usually assumed to be unreliable from the get-go, so mitigations usually already exist here (E2EE, checksums, ECC).

really any sort of replication solution needs validation of the data is of significant value

Absolutely correct. An untested backup is probably better than nothing but most definitely worse than a tested backup.

and have a way to recover if someone does a ‘sudo rm -rf /’ accidentally.

Certainly something that must be mitigated but this is getting out of "hardware failure" territory now ;)