I don't. Of my 120tb, I only care about the 4tb of personal data and I push that to a cloud backup. The rest can just be downloaded again.
post
Personally I deal with it by prioritizing the data.
I have about the same total size Unraid NAS as you, but the vast majority is downloaded or ripped media that would be annoying to replace, but not disastrous.
My personal photos, videos and other documents which are irreplaceable only make up a few TB, which is pretty managable to maintain true local and cloud backups of.
Not sure if that helps at all in your situation.
Not all data is equal. I backup things i absolutely can not lose and yolo everything else. My love for this hobby does not extend to buying racks of hard drives.
You'll think I'm crazy, and you're not wrong, but: sneakernet.
Every time I run the numbers on cloud providers, I'm stuck with one conclusion: shit's expensive. Way more expensive than the cost of a few hard drives when calculated over the life expectancy of those drives.
So I use hard drives. I periodically copy everything to external, encrypted drives. Then I put those drives in a safe place off-site.
On top of that, I run much leaner and more frequent backups of more dynamic and important data. I offload those smaller backups to cloud services. Over the years I've picked up a number of lifetime cloud storage subscriptions from not-too-shady companies, mostly from Black Friday sales. I've already gotten my money's worth out of most of them and it doesn't look like they're going to fold anytime soon. There are a lot of shady companies out there so you should be skeptical when you see "lifetime" sales, but every now and then a legit deal pops up.
I will also confess that a lot of my data is not truly backed up at all. If it's something I could realistically recreate or redownload, I don't bother spending much of my own time and money backing it up unless it's, like, really really important to me. Yes, it will be a pain in the ass when shit eventually hits the fan. It's a calculated risk.
I am watching this thread with great interest, hoping to be swayed into something more modern and robust.
Sneakernet crew here too. My work offsite backup is in my backpack. Few times per week I do a sync which takes a few minutes and take it home again. (The sync archives old versions of files and the drive is encrypted.)
We tried several cloud-based solutions and they were all rather expensive or just plain hard to run to completion or both.
That is old-old-school. It works tho. You have to be a bit scheduled about it, to encompass current and future important data. IIRC AWS created a 100 petabyte drive and a truck to haul it around to basically do the same thiing, just in much larger amounts.
Backup to 2nd nas.
Important stuff gets backed up to cloud storage. Whatever is cheapest.
In my case Synology c2 cloud was cheapest.
c2 seems expensive, I would go with hetzner storage box + restic
I've been following this post since the first comment.
And I have just put together my own RAID1 1TB NAS. And I did not think that 1TB will serve me forever, more like "a good start".
But the numbers I've been seeing in here... you guys are nuts 😆
I'm not sure if I qualify as a 'larger local hoster' but I would go through your 20 TB and decide what really is important enough to backup in case the wheels fall off. Linux ISOs, those can be re-downloaded, although it would take a bit of time. The things that can't be readily downloaded such as my music collection that I have been accumulating for decades, converted to flac, and meticulously tagged, can't be re-downloaded. So that is one of my priorities to back up. Pictures, business documents, personal documents, can't be re-downloaded, so that goes on the 'must back up' list....and so on. Just cull out what is and isn't replaceable. I would bet that once you do that, your 20 TB will be a bit more slim, and you're not trying to push 20TB up the pipe to a cloud backup.
I use BackBlaze's Personal, unlimited tier for $99 USD per year, which is a pretty sweet deal. One thing about Backblaze to remember is that the drives being backed up must be physically connected to the PC doing the backup/uploading. I get around that because I have a hot swap bay on my main PC, but there are other methods and software that will masquerade your NAS or other as a physically connected drive.
Backblaze personal doesn't support Linux or BSD, so it would be useless for a NAS.
There are many ways to skin the cat. Here's just one:
This Docker container runs the Backblaze personal backup client via WINE, so that you can back up your files with the separation and portability capabilities of Docker on Linux.
It runs the Backblaze client and starts a virtual X server and a VNC server with Web GUI, so that you can interact with it.
https://github.com/JonathanTreffler/backblaze-personal-wine-container
There are also other apps that will 'fool', for a lack of a better word, Backblaze to think a NAS drive is physically connected.
I use backblaze too, started with the personal back up, but swapped to the B2 solution as it was supported by my NAS. The cost of the actual storage isn't much, most of the cost is in access, so for data that doesn't alter much it worked out just as cheap, and easier to do things that way.
and easier to do things that way.
I'm cheap and my labor is free. LOL But you do have a point.
Lto tape. But I only have 15tb
It quickly becomes cost effective when you actually need the data to be safe. Far easier to have off site backups. I have never had a problem , but I like to have offline backup. Most of the time my data is static. So I am only backing up projects files ans changes for the most part.
If you have 40+ tb of dynamic data I can’t help there.
Edit: I buy used drives that are usually 2 generations old, so I got lto-5 drives when lto 7 was new. The used drives may be less reliable but used drives can be 1/10th the price of the newest ones.
Recently helped someone get set up with backblaze B2 using Kopia, which turned out fairly affordable. It compresses and de-duplicates leading to very little storage use, and it encrypts so that Backblaze can't read the data.
Kopia connects to it directly. To restore, you just install Kopia again and enter the same connection credentials to access the backup repository.
My personal solution is a second NAS off-site, which periodically wakes up and connects to mine via VPN, during that window Kopia is set to update my backups.
Kopia figures out what parts of the filesystem has changed very quickly, and only those changes are transferred over during each update.
The Backblaze option is something I've seriously considered.
Any reason this person didn't go with the $99/year personal backup plan? It says "unlimited" and it is for my household only, but maybe I'm missing something about how difficult it is to setup on Unraid or other NAS software. B2's $6/TB/mo rate would put me at $150/mo which is not great.
You can't use the $99/year plan for that. The authorized client only works as a desktop application on Windows and MacOS.
They only needed about 500GB.
And personal is for desktop systems. You have to use Backblazes macOS/Windows desktop application, and the setup is not zero-knowledge on Backblazes part. They literally advertise being able to ship you your files on a physical device if need be.
Which some people are ok with, but not what most of us would want.
Yes. That's not mutually exclusive with Backblaze having access to your backups.
You can do that with B2. Just use an application to upload that encrypts as it uploads.
The only way to achieve the same on the backup plan (because you have to use their desktop app) is to always have your entire system encrypted and never decrypt anything while the desktop app is performing a backup.
Did you not read what I said? You use their app, which copies files from your system as-is. Ensuring it never grabs a cleartext file is not practical.
Also doesn't mean it is. Or in a way where only you can decrypt it.
The chain of custody is unclear either way. You're not in control.
No shit. But encryption isn't the same as zero-knowledge. Where by the time they handle the data in any way whatsoever, it's already encrypted, by you.
Do you not know what zero-knowledge means? Or are you so focused on my mentioning they'll ship data to you physically that what I actually said went over your head?
From the page you just linked:
Implement encryption transparently so users don’t have to deal with it
Allow users to change their password without re-encrypting their data
In business environments, allow IT access to data without the user’s password
It's not zero-knowledge!
Yeah. It's almost like I literally said that in my second comment.
Which some people are ok with, but not what most of us would want.
What gap in my knowledge are you trying to fill here?
I didn't even mention encryption in my second comment. Just that their backup plan isn't zero-knowledge.
With what?
That self hosting admins on lemmy probably care about their backups not being accessible to third parties?
I don't think you can claim that they wouldn't.
You can claim that YOU don't mind. But that's a sample size of one. And I'm not denying there are people who don't care.
I just don't think they're the type to be self-hosting in the first place.
And that still doesn't answer why the fuck you set out on this series of "well achuallys"?
It seems to me, you're still looking for something to correct me on.
...
Sure they can. How else do they enable providing access to the content without the user password?
The data is secured against unauthorized access, but unlike zero-knowledge setups where the chain of custody is fully within user control, the user is not the only one authorized. And even if you are supposed to be, you cannot ensure that you actually are.
OF-FUCKING-COURSE the physical drives, and network traffic are encrypted. That's how you prevent unauthorized physical access or sniffing of data in-flight. That's nothing special.
But encryption is not some kind of magic thing that just automatically means anyone who shouldn't have access to the data, doesn't.
For that to actually be the case, you need solid opsec and known chain of custody. Ways of doing things that means the data stays encrypted end-to-end.
The personal backup plan doesn't have that.
...
4
Explain to me how they couldn't. Without simply stating "it's encrypted".
On the B2 plan you can use open source solutions like Kopia, and literally look at the code, to KNOW that data is encrypted on your system with keys only you have, before Backblaze ever sees it.
Explain to me, how the personal plan using their closed source application achieves the same.
Linking to a page where they say "it's secure" is not sufficient. Elaborate. In detail. To at least an equal extent I already have.
No.
I'm saying 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% ≠ 100%
For some people that's close enough. For some of us it's not.
Prove otherwise. I dare you. I'm done putting in effort explaining the obvius to you. Your turn.
For me, I only back up data I can't replace, which is a small subset of the capacity of my NAS. Personal data like photos, password manager databases, personal documents, etc. get locally encrypted, then synced to a cloud storage provider. I have my encryption keys stored in a location that's automatically synced to various personal devices and one off-site location maintained by a trusted party. I have the backups and encryption key sync configured to keep n old versions of the files (where the value of n depends on how critical the file is).
Incremental synchronization really keeps the bandwidth and storage costs down and the amount of data I am backing up makes file level backup a very reasonable option.
If I wanted to back up everything, I would set up a second system off-site and run backups over a secure tunnel.
entire nas (~24TB used) is replicated to another nas in another building (2 actually). i like having 3 copies.
Well, first while raid is great, it's not a replacement for backups. Raid is mostly useful if uptime is imperative, but does not protect against user errors, software errors, fs corruption, ransomware or a power surge killing the entire array.
Since uptime isn't an issue on my home nas, instead of parity I simply have cold backups which (supposedly) I plug in from time to time to scrub the filesystems.
If a online drive dies I can simply restore it from backup and accept the downtime. For my anime I have simply one single backup, but or my most important files I have 2 backups just in case one fails. (Unfornately both onsite)
On the other hand, for a client of mine's server where uptime is imperative, in addiction to raid I have 2 automatic daily backups (which ideally one should be offsite but isn't, at least they are in different floors of the same building).
With another large NAS.
What's your recovery needs?
It's ok to take 6 months to backup to a cloud provider, but do you need all your data to be recovered in a short period of time? If so, cloud isn't the solution, you'd need a duplicate set of drives nearby (but not close enough for the same flood, fire, etc.
But, if you're ok waiting for the data to download again (and check the storage provider costs for that specific scenario), then your main factor is how much data changes after that initial 1st upload.
Sorry. Shortly after posting this and the initial QA I left for a trip.
I could definitely wait those time periods for a first backup and a restore, since I assume it'll be a once in 10 year at worst situation. Data changes after the first upload should be show enough to keep up.
No worries, I don't have a time limit on responses 😉
But... I took somethong like ~3 days to get an initial baxkup done.
Then ~3 years later I was at a different provider doing the same thing.
What I did do differently was to split the data into different backup pools (ie photos, music, work, etc) rather than 1 monolithic pool... that'll make a difference.
As someone who has experienced double failure twice in my lifetime, I seriously recommend doing backups.
The problem is that the only serious backup solution is another HDD for this size. A robot array for tapes or worm drives is probably out of budget.
Like others, I have a 2 tier system.
About 2TB of my (Synology) NAS is critical files. Those get sent via Hyperbackup to cloud storage on at least a weekly basis, some daily. I have them broken up into multiple tasks with staggered schedules so it never has much to do on any given day.
The other 16TB I have get sync'd (again with hyperbackup, but not a scheduled backup task) to a 20TB external drive roughly once per quarter. Then that drive lives on the closet of a family member.
Backblaze offers unlimited data on a single computer, $99/year.
There might be some fine print that excludes your setup but might be worth investigating.
only windows (maybe mac)
Yeah, people have done workarounds and stuff to get their entire NAS backed up but those seemed sketchy and bad when I looked into it.
Wine or there is a Docker container that runs the Backblaze client.
Honestly, I'd buy 6 external 20tb drives and make 2 copies of your data on it (3 drives each) and then leave them somewhere-safe-but-not-at-home. If you have friends or family able to store them, that'd do, but also a safety deposit box is good.
If you want to make frequent updates to your backups, you could patch them into a Raspberry Pi and put it on Tailscale, then just rsync changes every regularly. Of course means that wherever youre storing the backup needs room for such a setup.
I often wonder why there isn't a sort of collective backup sharing thing going on amongst self hosters. A sort of "I'll host your backups if you host mine" sort of thing. Better than paying a cloud provider at any rate.
That NAS software company Linus (of Linus Tech Tips) funded has a feature for this planned I think.
An open-source standalone implementation would be dope as hell. Sure, it'd mean you'd need to double your NAS capacity (as you'd have to provide enough storage as you use), but that's way easier than building a second NAS and storing/maintaining it somewhere else or constantly paying for and managing a cloud backup.
such a system would need a strict time limit for restoration after the catastrophe. Otherwise leeching would be too easy.
That's an incredibly good point. Bad actors are the worst. Some ideas:
- Maybe you'd need to contribute your storage capacity +10% (or more), to account for your and other's downtime during disasters.
- A time limit after disasters would be necessary. It's difficult to think of a proper time limit though, as even a month might not be enough time if your entire house burns down.
- Maybe a payment system could be set up to where, if your server doesn't ping for a week, your credit card is automatically charged (after pinging you with many emails). Sure, that'd suck, but it'd be better than loosing your data, and cheaper overall than paying for cloud backups. I'm not sure where that money would go. Maybe distributed to those who didn't experience a disaster, or maybe to the software project, though that would mean people are profiting from a disaster. Maybe it could go to a charity of your choice or something.
Definitely a difficult problem to solve. I'm sure people smarter than me have ideas beyond mine.
A time limit after disasters would be necessary. It's difficult to think of a proper time limit though, as even a month might not be enough time if your entire house burns down.
and also accounting for low bandwidth connections.. whats more, some shitty providers even have monthly data caps
Maybe a payment system could be set up to where, if your server doesn't ping for a week, your credit card is automatically charged (after pinging you with many emails).
yeah, that would be almost a necessary feature. being able to hold on to the backup when you really can't restore.
I have 3 main NASes
78TB (52TB usable) hot storage. ZFS1
160TB (120TB) warm storage ZFS2
48TB (24TB) off site. ZFS mirror
I rsync every day from hot to off site.
And once a month I turn on my warm storage and sync it.
Warm and hot storage is at the same location.
Off site storage is with a family friend who I trust. Data isn't encrypted aside from in transit. That's something else I'd like to mess with later.
Core vital data is sprinkled around different continents with about 10TB. I have 2 nodes in 2 countries for vital data. These are with family.
I think I have 5 total servers.
Cost is a lot obviously, but pieced together over several years.
The world will end before my data gets destroyed.
But would your data survive a nearby gamma-ray burst?
I use aws s3 deep archive storage class, $0.001 per GB per month. But your upload bandwidth really matters in this case, I only have a subset of the most important things backed up this way otherwise it would take months just to upload a single backup. Using rclone sync instead of just uploading the whole thing each time helps but you still have to get that first upload done somehow...
I have complicated system where:
- borgmatic backups happen daily, locally
- those backups are stored on a btrfs subvolume
- a python script will make a read-only snapshot of that volume once a week
- the snapshot is synced to s3 using rclone with --checksum --no-update-modtime
- once the upload is complete the btrfs snapshot is deleted
I've also set up encryption in rclone so that all the data is encrypted an unreadable by aws.
It is cheap as long as you don't need to restore your data. Downloading data from S3 costs a lot. OP asked about 56TB of storage, for which data retrieval would cost about 4.7k
https://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/ under data transfer
Don't do this. It's a god damn nightmare to delete
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| Git | Popular version control system, primarily for code |
| HTTP | Hypertext Transfer Protocol, the Web |
| HTTPS | HTTP over SSL |
| NAS | Network-Attached Storage |
| RAID | Redundant Array of Independent Disks for mass storage |
| SSD | Solid State Drive mass storage |
| SSL | Secure Sockets Layer, for transparent encryption |
| VNC | Virtual Network Computing for remote desktop access |
| VPN | Virtual Private Network |
| ZFS | Solaris/Linux filesystem focusing on data integrity |
[Thread #119 for this comm, first seen 26th Feb 2026, 15:51] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
I have 2 500GB SSDs in RAID1 for important data, truenas apps etc..., then 32TB total in RAIDZ1 for large Dataset that won't need speed (movies, TV show, music, pictures, archives,...)
If I have a complete NAS failure, a remote backup (via rsync to a friend's NAS Weekly) of the SSD and bootable drive can be used in a new system, and my torrent app has the list and magnet of all torrents stored on the SSD so it can re-download them.
top 100 comments