Hi all,

I have seen this thype of question make it's rounds around the board, however I haven't found it really adressed as yet.

If I have a dedicated server ... there usually is no backup ...

The options I have seen so far:
- Get second hard drive on your server (This could work only if you do incremental backups, otherwise you get filled up quickly) .. but what if the whole box burns out .... then we ...
- Get second server at the same DC ... ok ... that automaticlay doubles tour cost with 0 extra income ... well .. I don't know ...
- Get an offsite backup solution .... oops there goes my bandwith ... no good ....
- Get a tape backup installed on your box and someone to swap tapes ... probably the most expensive by far ....

As I see none of these are either very good or cost effective solutions ... yet every tom dick and harry advertises daily backups (or at least regular backups, which turn out to be "we occasionally backup once a month") ...

Can anybody provide some other ideas here ... or should I just tell the customers "Make your own backups" ... which would not really work if they had live data on their databases ....

A common type of backup now is to use rsync (http://samba.anu.edu.au/rsync/) and perform incremental backups to a remote backup server. That's the system that we use here for all of our servers. It doesn't use much bandwidth since after the first backup it only backs up data that has changed. Do a search on these forums for more info on rsync as I'm sure it's been mentioned many times.

The options that you talk about in your post are all possible solutions to the backup problem, but as you've said, they are also expensive. Using rsync is an inexpensive way of backing up data, if you use one backup server for several other servers.

Alan

ho247: typically how much data do you need to rsync each backup ? I know this is probably dependent on a few variables. But just like to have an idea (e.g for a full 80gb, daily updates takes up 5gb of transfers).. along that lines.

It really depends how much data your users change their data each day. For example, on one of our servers we have 10GB of data on a 60GB hard drive. For the first backup, it backs up 10GB. Since rsync is run on a daily basis, the backup server then uses about 5GB bandwidth over a one month period. So the bandwidth transfer is very low when you use this method. It's also safer storing data remotely on another server than on a second hard drive because if someone hacks into your server then they can have full access to the second hard disk aswell. But if the data is stored remotely, they can't get to it.

Alan

Therefore I guess I would be right to say that it should be fine then to have a backup server in the same facility on a separate machine. My thoughts is this: Will appreciate anyone who can point out any loopholes.

- To have a second server on the same facility
- The backup server has only one port open for you to remote access via SSH perhaps.
- All backups done via LAN (faster and cheaper probably)
- To setup security configuration to accept only connections from the local ip of the web server (and of course from you via internet to configure or to do any remote administration)

Wouldn't this logically be cheaper (since it doesn't required internet transfer) and faster (likely to be just one hop away and a full 100mbit direct link even)?

Also, what happens if data is changed while the backup is taking place? Would it mess up the backups?

Excellent advice .. thanks guys ...

Also can I apply that same strategy to another server in the same DC ... so in that case I would hire another server from them and have it purely as backup ...

What if I was to get a second server for my backups and stipulate to my provider that I need 0 external BW ... just internal lin for the backup ... it could be a little celeron with 128Mb ram just a nice HD .... is this feasible .. would anybody do this ??

HingyGuy: That's basically along my same line of thought. But the only one who can answer it is your provider. You may want to contact them and negotiate it. Some may be willing to work out a customised package for you. Theoretically it should be cheaper if it doesn't require external bandwidth. (and you can have a lower end machine as you mentioned)

To act more wood to the fire ... :D .... if I want to maintain a Grandfather-Father-Son backup system (i.e 3 days worth) I figure it will work along this lines:

- have 3 hd, each with one day worth of data.
- first time, backup to all 3.
- subsequently rsync to each one in rotation basis.

Originally posted by silversurfer
Therefore I guess I would be right to say that it should be fine then to have a backup server in the same facility on a separate machine. My thoughts is this: Will appreciate anyone who can point out any loopholes.

- To have a second server on the same facility
- The backup server has only one port open for you to remote access via SSH perhaps.
- All backups done via LAN (faster and cheaper probably)
- To setup security configuration to accept only connections from the local ip of the web server (and of course from you via internet to configure or to do any remote administration)

Wouldn't this logically be cheaper (since it doesn't required internet transfer) and faster (likely to be just one hop away and a full 100mbit direct link even)?

Also, what happens if data is changed while the backup is taking place? Would it mess up the backups?

Backups to the 2nd server in the same LAN... cheaper? I doubt so - unless there is special arrangement...

I see it as most provider will charge you on the transfers based on the switch port reading.... all data if transferred around the LAN is also considered on the port reading...

Unless a special arrangement like having a 2nd NIC connected to the backup server... hmm....

auyongtc: yes, I would say some special arrangement is probably needed. And some host will, but some probably not bother. The special arrangement scenario is what I am playing. It will be pretty cheap and low cost, low maintenance for a second box that does eat any external b/w for the host, and given it is used for backups, it's probably not going to have much if any complications once the system is set up and running. Thus, a flexible host may see that as something they can accomodate, make some extra for the backup boxes, and at the same time, it's cost reduction for the customer. But it is just my scenarios. :D I do hope I find a host like that :D