What storage software could I run to have an archive of my personal files (a couple TB of photos) that doesn’t require I keep a full local copy of all the data? I like the idea of a simple and focused tool like Syncthing, but they seem to be angling towards replication.

Is the simple choice to run some S3-like backend and use CLI or other client to append and browse files? I’d love something with fault tolerance that someone can gradually add disks to. If ceph were either less complicated or used less resources I’d want to do that.

  • Decronym@lemmy.decronym.xyzBEnglish
    1·
    9 months ago

    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
    NAS Network-Attached Storage
    RAID Redundant Array of Independent Disks for mass storage
    SSD Solid State Drive mass storage
    ZFS Solaris/Linux filesystem focusing on data integrity

    5 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 2 acronyms.

    [Thread #523 for this sub, first seen 17th Feb 2024, 23:55] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]

  • skilltheamps@feddit.deEnglish
    0·
    9 months ago

    that doesn’t require I keep a full local copy of all the data

    If you don’t do that, the place that you call “backup” is the only place where it is stored - that is not a Backup. A backup is an additional place where it is stored, for the case when your primary storage gets destroyed.

    • jkrtn@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      0·
      9 months ago

      “Local” as in the machine I am using to work on, which has a 256 GB SSD. Not as in “on-site” and “off-site.”

      • computergeek125@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        9 months ago

        In the IT world, we just call that a server. The usual golden rule for backups is 3-2-1:

        • 3 copies of the data total, of which
        • 2 are backups (not the primary access), and
        • 1 of the backups is off-site.

        So, if the data is only server side, it’s just data. If the data is only client side, it’s just data. But if the data is fully replicated on both sides, now you have a backup.

        There’s a related adage regarding backups: “if there’s two copies of the data, you effectively have one. If there’s only one copy of the data, you can never guarantee it’s there”. Basically, it means you should always assume one copy somewhere will fail and you will be left with n-1 copies. In your example, if your server failed or got ransomwared, you wouldn’t have a complete dataset since the local computer doesn’t have a full replica.

        I recently had a a backup drive fail on me, and all I had to do was just buy a new one. No data loss, I just regenerated the backup as soon as the drive was spun up. I’ve also had to restore entire servers that have failed. Minimal data loss since the last backup, but nothing I couldn’t rebuild.

        Edit: I’m not saying what your asking for is wrong or bad, I’m just saying “backup” isn’t the right word to ask about. It’ll muddy some of the answers as to what you’re really looking for.

        • jkrtn@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
          1·
          9 months ago

          Yes, I do see that. I’m definitely getting answers to a question I didn’t intend. I was hoping for more of an rsync but that something which also provides viewing and incremental backups to an offsite. I don’t know how to phrase that, and perhaps for what I want it makes more sense to have rsync/rclone to copy files around and something else to view.