Scalable hardware setup

Status
Not open for further replies.

jgreco

Resident Grinch
Joined
May 29, 2011
Messages
18,680
Yes, it gets expensive if you backup multiple terabytes. I've been using it to backup only critical data, not the data I don't need but don't want to delete.


I've been thinking about this idea a few times myself, actually have put a small NAS at my parents' house which I backup my critical data to (and vice versa).

The thing I'm uneasy about though is data consistency on that box - we go to great lengths to ensure we have consistent data, but that box, being a consumer NAS like my current one, runs on EXT4. How can I be sure I don't recover inconsistent data when that box is my last resort? (

It's a backup. The likelihood that you'd suffer a critical failure on your primary NAS and then find corrupt data on your remote backup is unlikely at best. The reality is that it is certainly possible for there to be some sort of corruption on a SoC based NAS, but rsync would likely detect and correct.

We've literally been beating the shit out of a bunch of small SoC NAS units here with iSCSI for years. Our VM's are instrumented with checksums of the filesystems which are periodically verified, and we just don't see random data corruptions. Yes it *could* happen, but as a practical matter, it hasn't.

These things are absolutely fine for backing up a class of data that is "I don't need but don't want to delete." They don't address the "absolutely cannot tolerate any corruption" aspect that ZFS can.

...get FreeNAS compatible hardware as in a cheap ECC compatible cpu, some SM board, 16g ram, and repurpose the drives.

I don't trust EXT4 a bit more than I trust NTFS. That level of trust got me here. 10TB lost last year.

That, of course, is a perfectly reasonable option, though it will be substantially more expensive.
 

Stux

MVP
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
4,419
Thank you for reviving an interesting 4 month old thread...

Why?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top