[Leaplist] Backup to external USB md RAID 1/5?

[Bryan J. Smith]

Jason Boxman wrote:
> It's larger in physical size than zero.

So are external 3.5" drives.  And I'm just talking the non-insulated
against shock types.  If you want better insulation/mounting, they
can be over 2" x 7" x 10".  ;)

> I have five boxes and when it's time to move,
> it's five too many.

Five?  Five?  Okay, what's up here?

I have four (4) for:  
- Firewall (Slim MicroATX)
- My Desktop (Mini-Tower MicroATX)
- My Wife's Desktop (Cube MicroATX)
- My Server (Tower eATX)

I use my Desktop and Server to back each other, along with DVD-R/RAM
and 2.5" disks.  I might have a 5th case around that I'm building for
my family, etc...

Why are you complaining about a backup server when you have five (5)
systems?  You could use one of the other ones as a backup server in a
secondary role.  ;)

> Not having any money, several systems I acquired for free.

I just gave away a Cube MicroATX system without memory/disk at the
InstallFest a few months back.  I might have another to give away
soon as well.

> The backup server is a huge, ancient full tower system.
> It's an inch taller than my HX700B full tower, but with
> one less 5.25" bay. 

Then recycle that duty, backup, into a smaller case.  I'm not trying
to be "argumentative" here, just questioning some sense.  ;)

If something is big that I don't like, I make it smaller.  If
something is separate and can be combined with another thing, I
combine them.

Heck, with the free VMWare server, it's pretty easy to virtualize
these days, especially for something that is rarely run like a
near-line backup.  ;)

> It has an old Dell P3 500MHz slot 1 CPU mainboard, so I doubt
> it'll fit in a Slim or Cube case.

I have an extra Slot 1 (and even a Slot A) MicroATX mainboard.  ;)

> Wouldn't be if I owned a mainboard of that form factor
> and a Slim case.

I've only paid more than $40 for a MicroATX mainboard twice in the
last 3 years.  Most have been just under $40, and two (2) have been
under $20.

> Meh.  That's what I suspected.

It's all about risk.

Here's a flip ...

There is more risk to use an external mirror/stripe than putting your
"near-line backup" on a system with an already existing duty as its
2nd duty.  Just a consideration.  ;)

That's what I mean by the fact that I backup my desktop to my server,
and my server to my desktop.  I don't need the available 1-2TiB on
either system alone, but I can use 50-75% of each system's 1-2TiB of
storage for backups of each other's data.

Simple solution for home users IMHO.

I use LVM to create a volume that is _never_ mounted at boot, and has
to be explicitly enabled.

> How much extra?

If you already have enough to backup your data with those three (3)
disks, then move them to another system that you use already and use
that storage.  I thought that was obvious.  ;)

> I use Dirvish and need at least 1:1.

Then do 1:1 as you are doing now.  You have three (3) existing
drives, your just moving them, right?  I have PATA controllers if you
need them.

> I've done fun things like accidently `rsync --delete
> against a filesystem with an NFS mount and had to recover
> most of my files from backup.

Then why don't you script your backups so you remove the human
element?

> I enjoy having a full backup on-line and available.

Yes, which is called a "near-line."  We've been over this before. 
Nothing is changing here.  You can enable/disable in software,
especially if you use LVM volume groups.

> I suppose I could do that.  Only a few years ago, I was still
> dual booting my workstation, so that would've been more of a
> pain.

Given the fact that the FUSE 3rd Gen NTFS driver can safely write to
NTFS filesystems, that isn't an issue either.  ;)

> I've lost my backup server (was RAID-0 as I couldn't yet
> afford another 300GB ATA disk for RAID-5) and my single SCSI
> 18GB SCA OS drive on the file server almost simultaneously.

Well, I don't know what to tell you.  But at least it was just your
backup, and not your usable system.  ;)

> I like reliable backups.

Well, striping over external FireWire or USB ain't it.  Even eSATA is
a compatibility joke right now (don't get me started).  Only SCSI and
SAS are technically viable, but they aren't pricewise.

Hence why I'm still for network-based near-line.

> So, no, I won't be switching to using USB2'd drives, ever.
> I just thought I'd ask.

I'm hopeful eSATA will "come around."  Until then, network.  ;)

> My true goal is simply to reduce footprint.  However, I
> happen to have all these existing systems.  Other than physical
> size, they all work fine.  I can't afford to replace them with
> a bunch of MicroATX based systems today, since that'll probably
> cost more than $0.

Wait.  Are we talking about replacing only one (1) system, your
backup system?  Or are you complaining about all five (5) of your
boxes?  And in that case, what does that have to do with backup? 
Especially if you only replace one (1) system?

Hey, rant away, I don't mind.  But I would like to help, seriously. 
So that's why I'm pointing out that you're "not working the problem."
 ;)

> In the future, once the equipment is sufficiently old to
> justify replacement, I think I favor the Micro-ATX mainboards
> and cube cases.

I started three (3) years ago on the slim/cube, and almost five (3)
years ago with the mini-tower MicroATX solutions.  What finally got
me "changed over" were dirt-cheap MicroATX mainboards.

> I'd also like to reduce the number of hard disk drives,
> but the ones I have work fine.  The 4x120GB WDs have lasted
> for years.  My 2x120GB and 3x300GB Seagate drivers are all
> still under the five year warranty for at least 3 years each.

I'm still running with a dozen 200GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 drives.
 ;)  Now I'm starting to buy only 2.5" SATA drives, since the cost
premium is within 50% (around $0.30/GB, whereas 3.5" is around
$0.20).  2.5" SAS has taken over the server closet in the last two
(2) years, and that's bringing prices down further, and it will
continue.

> So I am kind of stuck unless I want to stop using perfectly
> good equipment and spend more money to replace it all with
> smaller mainboards and cases and fewer, larger hard drives.

Definitely consider 2.5" then the next time you buy in the coming
years.  If you mirror/stripe, the performance difference to 3.5" is
not much.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith       Professional, Technical Annoyance
b.j.smith at ieee.org  http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith
------------------------------------------------------
       Fission Power:  An Inconvenient Solution