If you have an offsite copy of your files (and not in a sync service like Dropbox) you are already in a better position than most.
Restoring from offsite takes time, even with Backblaze’s option of shipping a hard disk. You may also have data corruption troubles, companies may close all of sudden. It’s just not as convenient as local copies.
A further copy that is locally available is simply a better strategy. Adding more copies after these two is not a bad idea but you start getting hit by the law of diminishing returns.
I know about their blog post (theirs is actually one of the very few newsletters I subscribe to :D), and mostly it seems like a bit of convenience for a lot of inconvenience. A local backup would, well, require me to have a local backup for everything, so more hardware, more maintenance mostly for a faster restore? I guess if you have a lot of data to restore, that could be a worthy exchange?
You may also have data corruption troubles, companies may close all of sudden.
At exactly the same time as my local computer explodes. That’s what I mean, the extra security seems extremely tiny.
Or things like your offsite provider taking a shit and corrupting your backups without realizing, meaning when your local backup goes kaput your 2nd backup has already silently failed. That exact thing hitting one of their off-site providers was what convinced one of my clients to let me fix their backup procedures (or at least try)
Well, if you’d like to reduce your risk of losing data to a minimum, you should still test your backups anyways. Shit happens, even to the good people at Backblaze sometimes.
3-2-1
3 copies of data
2 different storage medium
1 set of data at an off-site location
Commonly refered by the sailors as “one spouse in each port”
I always wondered, what scenario does 3-2-1 protect against, that 2-2-1 doesn’t? My hard disk dying and backblaze losing all my data at the same time?
If you have an offsite copy of your files (and not in a sync service like Dropbox) you are already in a better position than most.
Restoring from offsite takes time, even with Backblaze’s option of shipping a hard disk. You may also have data corruption troubles, companies may close all of sudden. It’s just not as convenient as local copies.
A further copy that is locally available is simply a better strategy. Adding more copies after these two is not a bad idea but you start getting hit by the law of diminishing returns.
You can actually read more about the 3-2-1 rule in a Backblaze post: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/the-3-2-1-backup-strategy/
I know about their blog post (theirs is actually one of the very few newsletters I subscribe to :D), and mostly it seems like a bit of convenience for a lot of inconvenience. A local backup would, well, require me to have a local backup for everything, so more hardware, more maintenance mostly for a faster restore? I guess if you have a lot of data to restore, that could be a worthy exchange?
At exactly the same time as my local computer explodes. That’s what I mean, the extra security seems extremely tiny.
deleted by creator
Or things like your offsite provider taking a shit and corrupting your backups without realizing, meaning when your local backup goes kaput your 2nd backup has already silently failed. That exact thing hitting one of their off-site providers was what convinced one of my clients to let me fix their backup procedures (or at least try)
Fair enough, though I trust Backblaze more than myself, there ;)
Well, if you’d like to reduce your risk of losing data to a minimum, you should still test your backups anyways. Shit happens, even to the good people at Backblaze sometimes.