24
Can/should I just use a networked folder as a duplicati backup destination? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Stumbling through getting a proper backup regime in place. I have an unraid system running a proper array, and am trying to setup backups for two separate machines (one windows one debian). I've successfully setup a file share, and have duplicati running. Are there disadvantages to just setting the network folder as the destination for the backup? It seems a little hamfisted (and the data rates are terrible).

It seems like there's probably a better way to do this...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)
[removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago

    This is really helpful thank you! I think it's samba share? Whatever Unraid has just baked in and calls "shares".

    Googling rsync that looks like it'll work, and faster is better!

    While I do want true backups of a few drives (as in: if a drive fails, restore the backup to a new drive, physically swap it out, and you're good to go), the majority of the data I'm just looking to have it "backed up" (as in: all of the files are present in more than one location). The majority of the data is ~18TB of media for my plex server. My unraid is: 1x 2TB, 1x 10TB, 1x20TB and 1x20TB(parity). It sounds like Rsync-ing the 20TB drive with my plex media and the 20TB unraid disk would get me what I need?

    Thanks for the pointers, getting a few things to google is incredibly helpful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    SMB isn't really all that slow these days.

    I have NFS and SMB shares set up (same directory) and copying files to/from them maxes out my gigabit LAN.

    SSH on the other hand is slower, because there's more CPU overhead.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I disagree with the other person, rsync + ssh is faster even in my own benchmarks. But samba is plenty fast enough these days, I can easily have it max out my gigabit network so I don't need anything faster. So for me (and I would guess the majority of people) speed really isn't a concern anymore, so I use samba because it's easy to use and it makes sharing network folders to anything else a breeze.

    It's like phones. Yeah technically the newest iPhone is faster than this years budget Samsung. But when's the last time your phone was actually a bottleneck? (Unless you're one of those people who play games, in which case, actually please respond cause I could use some really nice idle city builders for my phone pls)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)