Recommended Posts

Oddball question. Should you backup \flash ? In the event of a usbdrive failure I realize that a new key will be required (I have a backup of that anyway... because why not...) but is there any other settings or files which having a backup would help the process of getting up and running again? If not the whole flash are there important files we should be looking at backing up?

 

 

I rsync my flash periodically as there are some configuration files, plugins, extras, etc, etc.

In addition it has the superblock which is the layout of the array itself.

Keep in mind it might be out of date from when you've last made a change to the array, so you'll want to do the rsync/backup anytime you change the array.

Also, unRAID keeps the array run status in the superblock (super.dat) so if you copy it with the array running and then start from that copy unRAID will assume an unclean shutdown and force a correcting parity check. So, doing the copy with the array stopped is probably a good idea.

 

Ideally an unneeded parity check should not be a problem but sometimes things are not ideal.

 

The most important thing is to not restore a super.dat that is not of the current array configuration. Another user did that after reusing his parity drive as a data drive, and unRAID started writing parity to that data drive.

Link to comment
  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

...  by the time I'm done finishing doing a complete back up of all my 30-6=24TB on  DVD's I would be a very old man ...

 

Not sure why you think that.  24TB isn't really all that much these days ... on 4 6TB drives.    A small 2nd UnRAID server with that much (or more capacity); and it takes ~ 5 minutes of "your time" to backup your entire collection [Clearly the copy would take a few days cross the network, but that doesn't require any action on your part except to initiate the copy.]

He's talking about backing up onto actual DVD's.  Would take forever.  Beyond that, its actually cheaper to back it up onto other hard drives.

 

How could you even back up to DVDs? Even BDs only have a paltry 50GB of storage and are very slow. But DVDs are pathetic with only 8.5GB of storage and even slower. Even back in 2001/2002 that wouldn't have been enough for me to store my HD recordings. I recorded 40GB to 60GB every week back then.

Link to comment

 

How could you even back up to DVDs? Even BDs only have a paltry 50GB of storage and are very slow. But DVDs are pathetic with only 8.5GB of storage and even slower. Even back in 2001/2002 that wouldn't have been enough for me to store my HD recordings. I recorded 40GB to 60GB every week back then.

I have ~2000 DVD-R's which I used to backup prior to using unRaid.  BD's are stored on multiple disks.  It was a painful experience
Link to comment
  • 2 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...

I've been a lucky camper so far. Always had one unraid box, never backed it up since 2010. Went through many bad drives, never lost one file so far. I don't believe in superstition or anything like that and I'll just keep trucking with what has been working for me for over 5 years. I have thought several times of making a duplicate unraid server but the financial cost I couldn't do since I have more important obligations and financial priorities. While some may dump $1k into another box, I'd rather put it towards my mortgage and bills. My very important files, like pictures I can never get again, MP3 (music), financial documents, tax stuff, etc are all backed up to Crashplan anyway. And I have had to use Crashplan for several system restores and it works great. The only thing I do not backup and will lose if I have a catastrophic fail is all my TV shows and movies. I would be able to live without TV shows and movies. That's why I never spent money on another box. Of course I do pay Crashplan fees, but I feel comfortable with their service enough to not worry about my files. We all have our opinions on what is the perfect backup and since I've never lost a single file since I started with my Commodore C64 and Amiga 120 years ago I must be doing something right.

Link to comment

I've been a lucky camper so far. Always had one unraid box, never backed it up since 2010. Went through many bad drives, never lost one file so far. I don't believe in superstition or anything like that and I'll just keep trucking with what has been working for me for over 5 years. I have thought several times of making a duplicate unraid server but the financial cost I couldn't do since I have more important obligations and financial priorities. While some may dump $1k into another box, I'd rather put it towards my mortgage and bills. My very important files, like pictures I can never get again, MP3 (music), financial documents, tax stuff, etc are all backed up to Crashplan anyway. And I have had to use Crashplan for several system restores and it works great. The only thing I do not backup and will lose if I have a catastrophic fail is all my TV shows and movies. I would be able to live without TV shows and movies. That's why I never spent money on another box. Of course I do pay Crashplan fees, but I feel comfortable with their service enough to not worry about my files. We all have our opinions on what is the perfect backup and since I've never lost a single file since I started with my Commodore C64 and Amiga 120 years ago I must be doing something right.

 

Tempting the fates, aren't we? :)

Link to comment

Definitely tempting the fates.  Backups are just insurance ... and, like insurance, it's okay to not bother with losses you can afford to take.  I suspect you have insurance on your home ... most of us wouldn't want to absorb that loss if we had a fire or major storm damage ... and on your cars (although that's less clear ... collision insurance isn't always worth maintaining on older cars); and perhaps on some of our more valuable jewelry.  Etc.    A lot of folks think nothing about buying those policies ... but don't consider just how valuable their non-tangible assets are -- i.e. your data.  I always suggest one simple rule:  Assume your server was stolen tonight and never recovered.  If there's anything on it that you'd be heartbroken about losing, you should have it backed up.  If you wouldn't care about the stuff on it, then it's apparently a risk you're willing to take.  The cost of backups, with drives often under $30/TB, is actually very nominal compared to the cost (not just in $$, but also your time and effort) that you likely put into acquiring the data ... and in many cases may be irreplaceable.

 

By the way, dual parity is still NOT a replacement for backups  :)

[it would, of course, reduce the risk of loss due to failed drives]

 

Link to comment

Definitely tempting the fates.  Backups are just insurance ... and, like insurance, it's okay to not bother with losses you can afford to take.  I suspect you have insurance on your home ... most of us wouldn't want to absorb that loss if we had a fire or major storm damage ... and on your cars (although that's less clear ... collision insurance isn't always worth maintaining on older cars); and perhaps on some of our more valuable jewelry.  Etc.    A lot of folks think nothing about buying those policies ... but don't consider just how valuable their non-tangible assets are -- i.e. your data.  I always suggest one simple rule:  Assume your server was stolen tonight and never recovered.  If there's anything on it that you'd be heartbroken about losing, you should have it backed up.  If you wouldn't care about the stuff on it, then it's apparently a risk you're willing to take.  The cost of backups, with drives often under $30/TB, is actually very nominal compared to the cost (not just in $$, but also your time and effort) that you likely put into acquiring the data ... and in many cases may be irreplaceable.

 

By the way, dual parity is still NOT a replacement for backups  :)

[it would, of course, reduce the risk of loss due to failed drives]

 

My comment about tempting the fates was the boastful tone, not that he did not have a well conceived plan.

 

Truly unique works are definitely worthy of being backed up. Photos, financial records, correspondences, etc.

 

But media can be recovered in other ways - and is not necessarily lost.

 

And I do believe that the reliability of one's primary storage location DOES come into play in determining what data (beyond the critical) to back up.

 

A very secure primary storage leads to a less percentage of needing a backup and therefore a lesser percentage of loosing the value of the data.

 

Taken to absurdity, if the data would cost $1 to reconstruct, and the backup solution would cost $5000, regardless of the chance of loss, there is no need to backup the data.

 

At the other end, if the data would cost $1M to reconstruct, and the backup costs $5000, with a 10% chance of data loss, there is an absolute need for backup.

 

But what about ... if the data would cost $5000 to reconstruct, and the backup costs $1500, with a 10% chance of data loss

 

vs

 

if the data would cost $5000 to reconstruct, and the backup costs $1500, with a 0.1% chance of data loss.

 

Would the need for a backup be affected?

 

I think yes.

 

Clearly the problem is more complex than I lay out. The cost to reconstruct involves hours of a person's leisure time. That has a value. But taking backups also takes time and effort. And data losses are not always absolute. In fact, data losses are often small. All this plays in. A person has to weigh all of these variables in making decisions about backing up replacable works.

 

 

Link to comment

Agree ... as I noted before, a backup is essentially just insurance against data loss.    And as with any other insurance, you weigh the risk of loss against whether or not you're willing to accept the loss.    Personally, I've spent thousands of hours and thousands of dollars compiling the data and media I have stored on my server -- and while I still have most of the original DVDs and could re-rip, re-render, re-index, etc. to reconstruct my collection, I have NO desire to do so.    Bottom line:  For my 45TB or so of data, a thousand dollars or so to have it all backed up is inexpensive insurance I'm more than willing to spend.    And I didn't really even spend that much, as many of my backup disks are simply lower-capacity disks (1-2TB) that I repurposed as backups when I upgraded my servers to larger disk sizes.

 

I agree that with dual parity a system is notably more reliable, and that can certainly be taken into account if you're evaluating the risk of loss and considering whether or not to "buy insurance" (i.e. backup your data).    But higher reliability still doesn't provide protection against theft, fire, or other catastrophic system losses.    My view is pretty simple:  If it's worth building a fault-tolerant server for your data, it's almost certainly worth backing that data up.  Period.

 

 

Link to comment

Definitely tempting the fates.  Backups are just insurance ... and, like insurance, it's okay to not bother with losses you can afford to take.  I suspect you have insurance on your home ... most of us wouldn't want to absorb that loss if we had a fire or major storm damage ... and on your cars (although that's less clear ... collision insurance isn't always worth maintaining on older cars); and perhaps on some of our more valuable jewelry.  Etc.    A lot of folks think nothing about buying those policies ... but don't consider just how valuable their non-tangible assets are -- i.e. your data.  I always suggest one simple rule:  Assume your server was stolen tonight and never recovered.  If there's anything on it that you'd be heartbroken about losing, you should have it backed up.  If you wouldn't care about the stuff on it, then it's apparently a risk you're willing to take.  The cost of backups, with drives often under $30/TB, is actually very nominal compared to the cost (not just in $$, but also your time and effort) that you likely put into acquiring the data ... and in many cases may be irreplaceable.

 

By the way, dual parity is still NOT a replacement for backups  :)

[it would, of course, reduce the risk of loss due to failed drives]

 

Of course I have insurance on my home and vehicle. I don't put my TV shows and movies on the same value level of my home and living, that's why I only save the files I can't live without. It only comes to about 2 terabytes, which is nothing but that data has a great value to me and I'll make sure I never lose it. I'm willing to risk the other files which just consists of my ripped movies, TV shows and misc files.

 

Having come back from the dead and getting back into the groove of things here makes me want to build a new box, a larger one, like 100TB or so and give it a good try. I have a small OCD problem where I have to research hardware until I'm completely exhausted of all hesitations, which drives my girlfriend crazy. So it takes me a long time to purchase new hardware, but once I get started it keeps on going. First of course is planning out what hardware to start off with. They do not currently make the case I have now, but will be checking out what's available out there and works. I assume I'm going to need a stable mainboard with a ton of SATA ports and compatible add-on card(s) for even more SATA ports. Sounds like fun and feels like full circle. But it really would be sweet to build a 100TB box. Looks like I might be selling some of my bitcoin. Here we go again....

Link to comment

Having come back from the dead and getting back into the groove of things here makes me want to build a new box, a larger one, like 100TB or so and give it a good try. I have a small OCD problem where I have to research hardware until I'm completely exhausted of all hesitations, which drives my girlfriend crazy. So it takes me a long time to purchase new hardware, but once I get started it keeps on going. First of course is planning out what hardware to start off with. They do not currently make the case I have now, but will be checking out what's available out there and works. I assume I'm going to need a stable mainboard with a ton of SATA ports and compatible add-on card(s) for even more SATA ports. Sounds like fun and feels like full circle. But it really would be sweet to build a 100TB box. Looks like I might be selling some of my bitcoin. Here we go again....

If you're really thinking about new hardware, be sure to consider virtualization capabilities of unRAID v6. Not all CPUs and mobos will work for some VM uses.
Link to comment

Having come back from the dead and getting back into the groove of things here makes me want to build a new box, a larger one, like 100TB or so and give it a good try. I have a small OCD problem where I have to research hardware until I'm completely exhausted of all hesitations, which drives my girlfriend crazy. So it takes me a long time to purchase new hardware, but once I get started it keeps on going. First of course is planning out what hardware to start off with. They do not currently make the case I have now, but will be checking out what's available out there and works. I assume I'm going to need a stable mainboard with a ton of SATA ports and compatible add-on card(s) for even more SATA ports. Sounds like fun and feels like full circle. But it really would be sweet to build a 100TB box. Looks like I might be selling some of my bitcoin. Here we go again....

If you're really thinking about new hardware, be sure to consider virtualization capabilities of unRAID v6. Not all CPUs and mobos will work for some VM uses.

 

Thank you. I will definitely make sure to consider that.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.