Proper backup of NAS

[AudioExplorations]

What is the best way (how pro's do it for SME's) for backing up the contents of a NAS? Would it be a second NAS in a different location (room/building), set up with remote reapplication (continually mirrored copy)? Thanks

[mjb]

If you're running RAID 1 (or 5) there's no need, as that's the raison d'etre of RAID. Otherwise, buy another one

[kumakuma]

If you're running RAID 1 (or 5) there's no need, as that's the raison d'etre of RAID. Otherwise, buy another one

 

RAID 1 or 5 doesn't protect you from a major calamity such as theft or your house burning down.

 

I have a small NAS (two mirrored 4TB drives) and I back it up to another 4TB drive using one of these:

 

Voyager by NewerTech - Hard Drive Dock for 3.5" and 2.5" SATA Devices

 

If the capacity of your NAS exceeds the capacity of current HDDs, you will probably need to backup to another NAS.

[goldsdad]

If you're running RAID 1 (or 5) there's no need, as that's the raison d'etre of RAID.

 

You couldn't be more wrong.

[mjb]

Then enlighten us, instead of just being smug....

[Allan F]

RAID 1 or 5 doesn't protect you from a major calamity such as theft or your house burning down.

RAID provides redundancy, not backup. It allows immediate recovery in the event of a drive failure. However, if a failure of the NAS affects all drives, your library is damaged or lost.

 

A very important point about RAID that is frequently ignored or misunderstood is that an accidental deletion of files - often a more frequent occurrence than a drive failure - will affect all drives containing that data, leaving no backup. Therefore, backup to at least one external USB drive is an absolutely minimal requirement. Many, if not most, back up to several external USB drives, keeping one in a different location or safety deposit box to guard against fire or other catastrophic disaster.

[goldsdad]

Then enlighten us, instead of just being smug....

 

raid isn't backup

[AudioExplorations]

Thanks guys, this confirms what I was thinking. I am indeed trying to protect against theft, accidental deletion, or the NAS going haywire for whatever reason. Am running RAID 5. Will put a 2nd NAS in another part of the house. Thanks again.

[dtb300]

Don't forget the most import backup - a copy stored offsite. Frequency depends on each, I do monthly.

[tranz]

One way that I just recently did. Get a big harddrive (4TB red in my case) and a harddrive dock, (or an USB external drive) hang it directly on the NAS USB port. Use the File Explorer to copy paste the lot. Easy.

[kumakuma]

One way that I just recently did. Get a big harddrive (4TB red in my case) and a harddrive dock, (or an USB external drive) hang it directly on the NAS USB port. Use the File Explorer to copy paste the lot. Easy.

 

This is basically what I do except that I use the Backup tool that's included in the Synology OS.

[plissken]

If you're running RAID 1 (or 5) there's no need, as that's the raison d'etre of RAID. Otherwise, buy another one

 

The reason for RAID is business continuity in face of a hard disk failure. The data remains highly available.

 

What RAID can't proactively protect you from is say a Virus.

 

You get a Virus on a RAID you're in the same scenario as a single HD. Backup is what you would use to recover clean files from.

[Audio_ELF]

Just to add to the "RAID is not a (substitute) to backup" mantra. One thing to remember is that if you rely on RAID5 (single disc failure allowed to) there is a huge risk that when you replace the drive, the act of rebuilding the array (after you've replaced the drive) often causes a second drive to fail.

[mansr]

Just to add to the "RAID is not a (substitute) to backup" mantra. One thing to remember is that if you rely on RAID5 (single disc failure allowed to) there is a huge risk that when you replace the drive, the act of rebuilding the array (after you've replaced the drive) often causes a second drive to fail.

 

RAID-6 handles a double failure which is nice but still doesn't replace off-site backups. With affordable services like Amazon Glacier (no affiliation) there is no excuse for not doing it.

[plissken]

RAID-6 handles a double failure which is nice but still doesn't replace off-site backups. With affordable services like Amazon Glacier (no affiliation) there is no excuse for not doing it.

 

Offsite storage is great until you have to restore it all. I setup tiered storage. Heavy i/o to ssd with less frequent to commodity spinner then to local backup and then to offsite

[mansr]

Offsite storage is great until you have to restore it all. I setup tiered storage. Heavy i/o to ssd with less frequent to commodity spinner then to local backup and then to offsite

 

You should obviously always have a local backup. In most cases (accidentally deleting the wrong file) even an online local backup will be intact. It's in those few cases when it isn't (e.g. fire) that you really want the off-site one.

[EuroChamp]

Raid 1 or Raid 5 or Raid whatever is not a backup!!! The primary use of a Raid is to shorten the downtime in case of a broken harddrive. You always need a sheduled (or manual) backup to a second medium (tape, disc, cloud, ...)

These days it is a good practise to copy the data to a second external harddrive or to a second storage (NAS).

 

I for myself am against raid arrays for home usage (too expensive). I prefer a real backup for the same cost. But in case of a broken harddrive you are in the disadvantage of a recovery from the backup.

It does not mean that a Raid is bad - of course it is good to have a raid on top.

 

In my own home network I use two 4-bay NAS' without Raid arrays. But I have an incremental backup (copyjob) every night. When a harddrive dies, I recover the data. Moreoften I need access to accidentially lost (deleted) data, where a Raid is useless.

 

There are many ways to take care of data, my way is one of many ...

[r_w]

He's not being smug,

 

Raid protects against random disk failure but it won't help if; the NAS bursts into flames, multiple disks die, the files are encrypted by a virus or the NAS is stolen. In any of those events you will have lost everything for ever!

 

The best way is either swap a couple of USB drives over regularly as mirrored backups (most NASs have good backup apps installed), or get another NAS at the other end of the house (on in preferably in another building) and mirror onto that.

 

SMEs (that don't have masses of data) also often backup to cloud storage, but that can be costly and is limited by broadband speed (in both directions).

 

Hope that helps.

 

Then enlighten us, instead of just being smug....

[aps]

This is basically what I do except that I use the Backup tool that's included in the Synology OS.

 

What is the name of the tool? (I'm running SDM 5.2.x and don't see a native backup tool so have just been using file transfer)

[davide256]

Whats the fastest way to backup and restore a Synology NAS if you are upgrading disk size for a 2 disk RAID 0 array? I use my NAS for media only, with original media on the PC in case of a user file mistake on the NAS. What I want to be prepared for is a RAID failure that forces a complete refresh... with a PC I'd do a disk image

and use Acronos True Image to restore image at boot up, no additional work required. I don't see a like boot option with Synology, looks like you have to install OS, reconfigure, then copy content?

[Gregory]

You should obviously always have a local backup. In most cases (accidentally deleting the wrong file) even an online local backup will be intact. It's in those few cases when it isn't (e.g. fire) that you really want the off-site one.

Hi,

Some filesystems (ZFS, BTRFS) have a snapshot functionality, you can keep image of your data in time. On my setup I do a snapshot every hour and I keep them for 2 months. This uses more space but I can revert back to any change (file update, delete...).

This of course is not a backup either. Just a protection against the thing between the chair and the keyboard :-)

G.

[dean70]

I backup my Synology Raid 6 setup to a bunch of WD Green drives that I put into a sata drive bay in the desktop machine. I use Sync-Back SE to split the backup over several drives.

 

Used to run a UPS on the NAS until the internal battery cooked - luckily I was there to shut it down. There was no thermal protection other than the unit beeping. I thought these things were supposed to reduce the risk of data loss & failure, not increase them! Last time I will trust a consumer grade UPS.

[jabbr]

Hi,

Some filesystems (ZFS, BTRFS) have a snapshot functionality, you can keep image of your data in time. On my setup I do a snapshot every hour and I keep them for 2 months. This uses more space but I can revert back to any change (file update, delete...).

This of course is not a backup either. Just a protection against the thing between the chair and the keyboard :-)

G.

 

yep:) more data lost to that than disc failure!

[jabbr]

These days it is a good practise to copy the data to a second external harddrive or to a second storage (NAS).

 

I for myself am against raid arrays for home usage (too expensive). I prefer a real backup for the same cost. But in case of a broken harddrive you are in the disadvantage of a recovery from the backup.

It does not mean that a Raid is bad - of course it is good to have a raid on top.

 

In my own home network I use two 4-bay NAS' without Raid arrays. But I have an incremental backup (copyjob) every night. When a harddrive dies, I recover the data. Moreoften I need access to accidentially lost (deleted) data, where a Raid is useless.

 

Actually there is little more important than your family photos and videos. Mirroring is hardly too expensive for home use! I backup to 3 NAS! each mirrored. last NAS only gets photos.

[Audio_ELF]

These days it is a good practise to copy the data to a second external harddrive or to a second storage (NAS).

No argument here

 

I for myself am against raid arrays for home usage (too expensive). I prefer a real backup for the same cost. But in case of a broken harddrive you are in the disadvantage of a recovery from the backup.

It does not mean that a Raid is bad - of course it is good to have a raid on top.

Actually I'm coming back to the idea that RAID for home is a good idea with a few caveats. First off I'm talking about mirroring rather than RAID5/6 which (unless you have a large media storage requirement) makes things overly complex. Second you need to use a modern filing system such as ZFS or BTRFS - these protect you against bitrot errors which is important for long term storage - there is no point doing regular backups if you don't know what you are backing up isn't damaged.

 

In my own home network I use two 4-bay NAS' without Raid arrays. But I have an incremental backup (copyjob) every night. When a harddrive dies, I recover the data. Moreoften I need access to accidentially lost (deleted) data, where a Raid is useless.

A separate backup is still required yes.