DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote at 20:33 this Sunday (GMT):
> On 11/24/2024 2:47 PM, Lameass Larry wrote:
>
>
>> my regular backup which was already 4 weeks old
>
> 4 weeks? That's 100% proof you don't do anything worthwhile on your
> Linux crapbox.

To be fair, I don't back up as often as I should either..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 11/24/2024 11:30 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
> DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote at 20:33 this Sunday (GMT):
>> On 11/24/2024 2:47 PM, Lameass Larry wrote:
>>
>>
>>> my regular backup which was already 4 weeks old
>>
>> 4 weeks? That's 100% proof you don't do anything worthwhile on your
>> Linux crapbox.
>
>
> To be fair, I don't back up as often as I should either..

Losing even half a day's work is way too much. It takes just a few
minutes to do a twice- or thrice-daily incremental backup.

I do need to make an off-site or cloud backup of the most important stuff.

On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 20:01:30 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:

>
> That's why I said your data doesn't have structure. Structure evolves.
> Constantly.
>
> My data is a structure. It is a warehouse, not a dump :) Only a dump can
> be left to itself.
>

It does not matter.

If your backup software backs up only the changes then your old "structure"
will be replaced by your new "structure." The result will be a perfect
mirror of your current "structure."

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 20:25:48 +0000, Farley Flud wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 20:01:30 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>>
>> That's why I said your data doesn't have structure. Structure evolves.
>> Constantly.
>>

Does it?

If you walk into any library on planet Earth you will find the
millions of books classified according to accepted library science
standards.

Those same standards should be applied to any personal data
collection. There should be no constant "evolution."

But you can certainly do as you prefer with your own data
files.

Backup software, however, does not discriminate.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On 11/25/24 2:25 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 20:01:30 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>>
>> That's why I said your data doesn't have structure. Structure evolves.
>> Constantly.
>>
>> My data is a structure. It is a warehouse, not a dump :) Only a dump can
>> be left to itself.
>>
>
> It does not matter.
>
> If your backup software backs up only the changes then your old "structure"
> will be replaced by your new "structure." The result will be a perfect
> mirror of your current "structure."
>
>
>
>
>

And how often do you then do the back up? A "warehouse" has constantly
things going in and getting out. These things' locations in it also
gradually change. And many of these things themselves - each! - also
gradually change. Every day. Every time I am at the computer this
"warehouse" changes. I'm absolutely not willing to settle for it jumping
back to how it was, say, a week earlier. How do you feel re_thinking_
your thoughts through an entire week? Lot's of work can go into one
week. "Backup" should do better than losing one's whole week of mental
activity.

So does one modify the backup every day, at the end of each day? Then
you're endangering your back up cause you're messing with it too often
and it may crash one day. It will in fact.

To get around that, you'd have to do entire back ups everyday, each on a
new media, and never touch them unless you have to. Putting these entire
backups on the same media is still dangerous.

I bet this is what those who are serious about it do. They have the
money and they have the men to spend hours each day backing up data,
perhaps even creating multiple copies on different media in case
something happens to one of them.

On 11/25/24 3:02 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
> If you walk into any library on planet Earth you will find the
> millions of books classified according to accepted library science
> standards.

Do the authors of those books visit that library everyday and modify
their book that's sitting there?

Computer doesn't just hold other people's books and music. How about
having a lot of stuff of your own thoughts and creation? These stuff
change almost every day. Each time you're at your computer in fact.

On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 17:33:49 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:

>
> So does one modify the backup every day, at the end of each day? Then
> you're endangering your back up cause you're messing with it too often
> and it may crash one day. It will in fact.
>
> To get around that, you'd have to do entire back ups everyday, each on a
> new media, and never touch them unless you have to. Putting these entire
> backups on the same media is still dangerous.
>
> I bet this is what those who are serious about it do. They have the
> money and they have the men to spend hours each day backing up data,
> perhaps even creating multiple copies on different media in case
> something happens to one of them.
>

Then you have to go the high end RAID route, just like vallor described
in one of his posts.

With a 22T drive RAID you can backup continuously.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 17:40:30 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:

>
> Computer doesn't just hold other people's books and music. How about
> having a lot of stuff of your own thoughts and creation? These stuff
> change almost every day. Each time you're at your computer in fact.
>

Those are two completely different things.

I am talking about a library or collection of documents.

You are referring to something akin to a developmental project.

Each of these will require a different backup strategy.

There may be software that can aid in your situation but I
don't know of any.

You may want to check out Obsidian:

https://obsidian.md/

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On 11/26/24 2:41 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> I am talking about a library or collection of documents.
>
> You are referring to something akin to a developmental project.

Both evovles. One sometimes faster and sometimes slower than the other.
And you can't tell this in advance so you'd arrange different treatments
of their backing up apriori.

So one's left with doing full backup of both, and it is time consuming,
and yet cannot be donw only rarely. So this is a mess.

I'm still in square one about it since 30 years ago :)

On 11/26/24 2:41 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> You may want to check out Obsidian:
>
> https://obsidian.md/

It reminds me of One Note, which incidentally caused the loss of a huge
chunk of my work and time some years back when newer versions of it
could not load the data of the older versions.. I never trust such
dangerous things again. I do my own organizing and create my own
structure for everything I store, of any kind.

On 11/26/24 2:29 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 17:33:49 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>>
>> So does one modify the backup every day, at the end of each day? Then
>> you're endangering your back up cause you're messing with it too often
>> and it may crash one day. It will in fact.
>>
>> To get around that, you'd have to do entire back ups everyday, each on a
>> new media, and never touch them unless you have to. Putting these entire
>> backups on the same media is still dangerous.
>>
>> I bet this is what those who are serious about it do. They have the
>> money and they have the men to spend hours each day backing up data,
>> perhaps even creating multiple copies on different media in case
>> something happens to one of them.
>>
>
> Then you have to go the high end RAID route, just like vallor described
> in one of his posts.
>
> With a 22T drive RAID you can backup continuously.
>
>
>
>
>

I understood that what he offered took care of speed and volume nicely,
but not the safety. I could not make sure each backup is placed on a new
media or each disk there contains more than one backup. If a disk, any
disk, is accessed all the time, it will crash one day.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 01:45:28 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 11/26/24 2:41 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
>> You may want to check out Obsidian:
>>
>> https://obsidian.md/
>
>
> It reminds me of One Note, which incidentally caused the loss of a huge
> chunk of my work and time some years back when newer versions of it
> could not load the data of the older versions.. I never trust such
> dangerous things again. I do my own organizing and create my own
> structure for everything I store, of any kind.
>

The "dangerous thing" here is Micro$oft with its proprietary formats.

Obsidian uses only open formats. From their web page:

"Obsidian uses open, non-proprietary files, so you're never locked in,
and can preserve your data for the long term."

Anyone who uses commercial software is assuming the great risk
of losing important data in the future.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On 11/27/24 3:15 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 11/26/24 2:29 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 17:33:49 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So does one modify the backup every day, at the end of each day? Then
>>> you're endangering your back up cause you're messing with it too often
>>> and it may crash one day. It will in fact.
>>>
>>> To get around that, you'd have to do entire back ups everyday, each on a
>>> new media, and never touch them unless you have to. Putting these entire
>>> backups on the same media is still dangerous.
>>>
>>> I bet this is what those who are serious about it do. They have the
>>> money and they have the men to spend hours each day backing up data,
>>> perhaps even creating multiple copies on different media in case
>>> something happens to one of them.
>>>
>>
>> Then you have to go the high end RAID route, just like vallor described
>> in one of his posts.
>>
>> With a 22T drive RAID you can backup continuously.
>
>
> I understood that what he offered took care of speed and volume nicely,
> but not the safety. I could not make sure each backup is placed on a new
> media or each disk there contains more than one backup.

Depends on how one configures.

Scott's was eight (8) spindles of 22TB drives in that NAS so they could
be organized as anything from one JBOD to eight (8) individual drives.

Plus there's RAID options: two (2) RAID5 arrays from 4 disks each; ~66TB
each (~132TB total), tolerant of one disk failure. Or an 8 disk RAID6:
same ~132TB total size but now spanned, & tolerant of two disk failures.
Plus many others (4 RAID1's of 22TB each = 88TB total), etc.

> If a disk, any
> disk, is accessed all the time, it will crash one day.

Sure, but HDD reliability has gotten pretty good. This comment prompted
me to go look on one of my systems ... I found that its been online and
running 24/7 since 31 March 2016 = 8.6 years (so far) & counting.

-hh

On 11/27/2024 2:45 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:

> It reminds me of One Note, which incidentally caused the loss of a huge
> chunk of my work and time some years back when newer versions of it
> could not load the data of the older versions..

Chimp PEBKAC

DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:
>On 11/27/2024 2:45 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>> It reminds me of One Note, which incidentally caused the loss of a huge
>> chunk of my work and time some years back when newer versions of it
>> could not load the data of the older versions..
>
>Chimp PEBKAC

Oh great response, racist cracker boy. It must be because he screwed
up, not M$ software, oh no. However, if he is talking about using
pirated M$ software, I would agree with you, I saw it happen when I
tried to use one copy of WinXP to upgrade both my and my mom's
computers, back in 2001. I did mine first, and when I did hers, it
crashed during installation, losing her data, then when I did a clean
install there were mysterious problems with both our systems. They
weren't tolerating casual copying, anymore.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 11/27/2024 10:08 AM, Joel wrote:
> DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:
>> On 11/27/2024 2:45 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>>> It reminds me of One Note, which incidentally caused the loss of a huge
>>> chunk of my work and time some years back when newer versions of it
>>> could not load the data of the older versions..
>>
>> Chimp PEBKAC
>
>
> Oh great response, racist cracker boy. It must be because he screwed
> up, not M$ software, oh no.

He lost data because he's a primate trying to use the White man's
technology.

He slapped the ground and hooted in anger.

DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:
>On 11/27/2024 10:08 AM, Joel wrote:
>> DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:
>>> On 11/27/2024 2:45 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>
>>>> It reminds me of One Note, which incidentally caused the loss of a huge
>>>> chunk of my work and time some years back when newer versions of it
>>>> could not load the data of the older versions..
>>>
>>> Chimp PEBKAC
>>
>> Oh great response, racist cracker boy. It must be because he screwed
>> up, not M$ software, oh no.
>
>He lost data because he's a primate trying to use the White man's
>technology.
>
>He slapped the ground and hooted in anger.

I dunno, I think my theory that you snipped makes more sense, that it
was M$ piracy revenge.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 11/27/24 2:25 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 01:45:28 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>> On 11/26/24 2:41 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
>>> You may want to check out Obsidian:
>>>
>>> https://obsidian.md/
>>
>>
>> It reminds me of One Note, which incidentally caused the loss of a huge
>> chunk of my work and time some years back when newer versions of it
>> could not load the data of the older versions.. I never trust such
>> dangerous things again. I do my own organizing and create my own
>> structure for everything I store, of any kind.
>>
>
> The "dangerous thing" here is Micro$oft with its proprietary formats.
>
> Obsidian uses only open formats. From their web page:
>
> "Obsidian uses open, non-proprietary files, so you're never locked in,
> and can preserve your data for the long term."
>
>
> Anyone who uses commercial software is assuming the great risk
> of losing important data in the future.
>
>
>
>
>

Nevertheless, the idea itself is a trap. A wrong strategy. One day it
ruins months of your work, if not years of it, for some nonsensical
technical reason.

To me it is like being active in a forum that has moderators. You just
don't do that. Nobody in the world is trusted in that position. To be
there is a blunder.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 02:15:05 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:

>
> I understood that what he offered took care of speed and volume nicely,
> but not the safety. I could not make sure each backup is placed on a new
> media or each disk there contains more than one backup. If a disk, any
> disk, is accessed all the time, it will crash one day.
>

Wrong.

The entire concept of RAID is to ensure data integrity (i.e. safety)
through redundancy.

In vallor's example, 8 drives would have to fail SIMULTANEOUSLY
for data to be lost, and the probability of that occurrence would
be EXTREMELY small.

You should adopt a RAID system with maybe 3-5 drives. This system
would be on-line continuously and you could backup your data in a
continuous fashion.

If desired, you could then backup to a more permanent storage
at regular intervals.

RAID is used everywhere when data integrity is essential.

I don't use it because my data is more of the "library"
model where weekly or even monthly backups are acceptable.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On 2024-11-27, DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:
> On 11/27/2024 10:08 AM, Joel wrote:
>> DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:
>>> On 11/27/2024 2:45 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>
>>>> It reminds me of One Note, which incidentally caused the loss of a huge
>>>> chunk of my work and time some years back when newer versions of it
>>>> could not load the data of the older versions..
>>>
>>> Chimp PEBKAC
>>
>>
>> Oh great response, racist cracker boy. It must be because he screwed
>> up, not M$ software, oh no.
>
>
> He lost data because he's a primate trying to use the White man's
> technology.
>
> He slapped the ground and hooted in anger.
>
>
>
<https://youtu.be/qer60xSRUlM?si=c2jzi_CTnTL1BYqj>

--
pothead

"Ding Dong The Witch Is Gone"
"Which Old Witch?"
"The Kamala Harris Witch. Of Course!"

On 11/27/24 2:44 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 02:15:05 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I understood that what he offered took care of speed and volume nicely,
>> but not the safety. I could not make sure each backup is placed on a new
>> media or each disk there contains more than one backup. If a disk, any
>> disk, is accessed all the time, it will crash one day.
>>
>
> Wrong.
>
> The entire concept of RAID is to ensure data integrity (i.e. safety)
> through redundancy.
>
> In vallor's example, 8 drives would have to fail SIMULTANEOUSLY
> for data to be lost, and the probability of that occurrence would
> be EXTREMELY small.
>
> You should adopt a RAID system with maybe 3-5 drives. This system
> would be on-line continuously and you could backup your data in a
> continuous fashion.
>
> If desired, you could then backup to a more permanent storage
> at regular intervals.
>
> RAID is used everywhere when data integrity is essential.
>
> I don't use it because my data is more of the "library"
> model where weekly or even monthly backups are acceptable.
>
>

So there is a solution but it costs $5000 ?

Thanks, but no thanks. :)

On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 21:05:20 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:

>
> So there is a solution but it costs $5000 ?
>
> Thanks, but no thanks. :)
>

That's only an example of high end RAID.

There are much cheaper RAID systems available.

I doubt if you would require 22T storage. A 2T,
3-bay RAID system would probably be only a few
hundred bucks.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On 11/27/24 10:05 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> ...
>
> So there is a solution but it costs $5000 ?
>
> Thanks, but no thanks. :)

No, there's a lot cheaper backup capabilities.

The most basic backup system is a single external (USB) hard drive. The
size of the disk merely needs to be modestly larger than the amount of
data on the PC that you want to back up. Typically, its easiest to not
get fancy and just add up the capacity ratings and then add a buffer.

For example, a fictionally "high end" i5 desktop with a 1TB SSD could be
backed up with a 2TB HDD.

Next step up is to have redundancy in backups. So for the above system,
instead of having one 2TB HDD, have two 2TB HDDs and have the backup
software alternate between the two.

Next step up is to have the 2nd backup drive to be offline from the PC.
Think "protection from a lightning strike".

Next step up is to have 3 backups in rotation, where the offline drive
is moved out of the home. Think "protection from house fire".

For RAID options, this typically is considered for when one wants better
24/7 uptime in case a backup drive fails.

Similarly, using a NAS for backup destination is for when one wants that
data to be on an Ethernet network instead of dedicated to one PC, such
as accessible to multiple PCs. And a NAS can also be accessible over
WiFI, which can be more convenient for laptop users.

-hh

On 11/28/24 7:12 AM, -hh wrote:
> ...
> Similarly, using a NAS for backup destination is for when one wants that
> data to be on an Ethernet network instead of dedicated to one PC, such
> as accessible to multiple PCs.  And a NAS can also be accessible over
> WiFI, which can be more convenient for laptop users.

Just heard that some of Synology's NASs are on sale at B&H:

Website: <https://www.bhphotovideo.com>

$161.99 DS223j (2 bays)
$509.99 DS923+ (4 bays)
$899.99 DS1821+ (8 bays)

Just add whatever drives you want. FYI, I think the last one is the one
that Scott had mentioned.

FYI, these are 'very good' prices, but not quite 'best ever'. For
example, the lowest I've seen on the 923 has been $480 ($30 less).

-hh

On 11/28/24 4:09 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 21:05:20 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>>
>> So there is a solution but it costs $5000 ?
>>
>> Thanks, but no thanks. :)
>>
>
> That's only an example of high end RAID.
>
> There are much cheaper RAID systems available.
>
> I doubt if you would require 22T storage. A 2T,
> 3-bay RAID system would probably be only a few
> hundred bucks.
>
>

I won't pay a few hundred bucks for it. $40 max. Tech's got rude.