[TonyRony]

I'm looking for a modern, network-based backup strategy for my home that provides the best combination of simplicity and convenience.

If you have just one or two PCs, an external hard drive is fine, I suppose. You can move the external drive from one machine to the other as needed. Now, though, many homes have three, four, or more systems. A better, more convenient solution suggests the need for a networked storage device or a server of some kind. HOWEVER, although I'm presently using Windows Home Server (WHS), I prefer to "graduate" to a different, simpler strategy; I have reasons for not wanting to use WHS any longer, but that discussion would really be better suited for a separate conversation. Suffice it to say that I've read that many WHS users -- particularly those who are using WHS for file sharing -- have found the need to backup their WHS system in order to insure they have at least two copies of all their files stored on different devices.

I'd like to know what you'd recommend in situations like this where a home has five systems to backup, for example. I'm willing to consider any solutions OTHER THAN Windows Home Server. I welcome recommendations using a UNIX/Linux-like server, as well, providing such solutions can deal with a home network that's entirely Windows-based.

Thanks in advance folks.

Tony M.

[LiveBrianD]

Maybe you'll want to look into FreeNAS?

[LincolnSpector]

Hi, Tony.

2 suggestions:

1) Use a cloud-based backup solution. I started using Mozy simply because I couldn't get other people in my family to backup.

2) A NAS, of course. A couple of years ago I looked at the Synology DS209j for an article and liked it quite a bit.It may have been replaced by a better model (or a worse one) since then.

Lincoln

[GoldenSandRiver]

FreeNAS is a better and simpler solution which turns your pc to a file-sharing base in your house.

[TonyRony]

Folks,

I wanted to sincerely thank everyone who took the time to reply.

To Lincoln ... I just wanted to mention that I've considered Synology products before. They seem to have a very fine product line and if I decided to buy such a product, I'm sure my choice would be either a Synology product or something comparable from QNAP.

As for GoldenSandRiver, Brian, and Lincoln ... I've carefully noted your mention of FreeNas. Coincidentally, I had been looking into that possibility, too, and installing it on an old system I have. I was especially impressed by learning about FreeNas coming with ZFS being integrated. I haven't yet figured out whether using ZFS with FreeNas is an option or required, but I intend to consider using ZFS, too.

I used to administer Solaris systems, but became uninvolved with system administration at about the same time that Sun introduced ZFS. However, I was familiar with and fond of Volume Manager. Now, though, I see that ZFS incorporates the best features of a solid file system with a familiar disk/volume management utility such as Volume Manager was.

Therefore, in summary, I shall not forget the possibility of using a Synology or QNAP product, but my first attempt at replacing Windows Home Server will be at attempt at using FreeNas.

Thanks very, very much, folks. I'm certain you've pointed me in the right direction and I'm confident you've saved me plenty of time, effort, and money. Good luck to you all and thanks again!

Tony M.

[smax013]

To me, the first thing you need to decide is if you want your files for ALL computers to be stored locally (i.e. on each computer) or if you want all the files to be stored centrally (i.e. on a "server")...or maybe even a combination of the two. Once you decide that, then it becomes easier to suggest options.

If you want to store the files locally on each computer, then there are basically two options: 1) have backup software on each machine backup files to a central (i.e. server) location (whether that be a computer sharing a drive/folder or an actual dedicated server using something like FreeNAS or an actual NAS device like something from QNAP or Synology or many others) or 2) have one computer run the backup software that then connects to clients on each computer to backup to an external drive on the computer with the backup software. For #1, then are all kinds of backup programs that can backup to network locations and that can be done automatically (i.e. on a script). If #2, then there are some backup programs that will work in this fashion...one of them is Retrospect. With Retrospect, you have the main backup program on ONE computer and you have "clients" on the other computers. Retrospect then connects to the client software and backs up the remote computers over the network to say an external hard drive. Now, my understanding of WHS is that it can be very similar to Retrospect...i.e. automatically backup individual computers to a central server device (so you should have a copy of the file on the individual computer and on the WHS device). The problem with BOTH options is that each computer to be backed up has to be powered on for the backup to occur.

If you want to store the files centrally, then you only need to backup that "central" device. That should be a relatively straight forward simple process using just about any backup software. I believe that WHS can also function this way.

If you want to do a combination of the two storage methods, then it gets more complicated. However, my understanding of WHS is that it can backup individual computers and also allow for central storage of other files...i.e. use both storage methods. If so, then you potentially could stick with WHS, but then just find a way to backup the WHS device (such as http://www.howtogeek...nal-hard-drive/). To be honest, it seems that WHS should do what you want/need it to do either way...but maybe I am missing something.

FWIW, I do NOT recommend using ONLY some "cloud" solution. I will note that I personally do not trust third parties with my personal files, especially with privacy policies that change at the drop of a hat. That is why I don't really use "cloud" services for much. But, ignoring my "pet peeve", you still should not ONLY use a cloud backup solution. What happens if that cloud backup site/solution becomes "unavailable" (whether they go out of business, get "attacked/hacked" so that you cannot connect, etc) and you need access to a file? My point is that you should also be backing up locally as well. OTOH, considering that most people don't backup at all, I could be convinced that at least just backing up to the "cloud" is better than nothing.

[TonyRony]

Thanks very much for your reply, SMAX.

My main objective is to have a simple, but reliable and convenient for solution. Having an external disk might be the most simple, but with four or five systems, I may as well graduate to something centralized, such as a server or NAS.

I like the Windows Home Server (WHS) concept, but if you use it for more than backups (by using it for central data storage), you're inviting trouble, which is precisely the reason why many WHS users are backing up their server, too. In other words, they're backing up their backups. In addition, the new version of WHS cannot be used to update a server using the previous version. The change is so dramatic, anyone wanting to use the new version would have to start all over again. Although I could manage, the thought is a turn-off to me.

Perhaps the biggest reason for no longer liking WHS: Since WHS uses a database-like structure, I feel this greatly increases the potential for losing your data. In other words, the machine must work, the OS must boot, the disks must be readable, and the database must not be corrupted. That last one is the game changer, I think. If the database is corrupted, you can lose everything! Not just some data or some backups, but everything.

So, for all of the above reasons, I'm shying away from WHS and also from the "database" style of data storage.

As for cloud storage, although I use it for file sharing, I haven't imagined trying to use it for recovery from an OS disk failure. So, cloud storage is not favored, either.

Now, frankly, I'm not even sure how FreeNAS saves its data, but when combined with using ZFS, I suspect the likelihood for corrupting your data is significantly reduced. In addition, if my FreeNAS server also used mirroring, I think I'd feel much, much safer.

So, I think I may have a little more homework to do, but right now I'm focusing on FreeNAS with ZFS in a mirrored environment. Is that making any sense?

Thank you again, SMAX.

Tony M.

[smax013]

TonyRony, on 06 March 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

Thanks very much for your reply, SMAX.

My main objective is to have a simple, but reliable and convenient for solution. Having an external disk might be the most simple, but with four or five systems, I may as well graduate to something centralized, such as a server or NAS.

I like the Windows Home Server (WHS) concept, but if you use it for more than backups (by using it for central data storage), you're inviting trouble, which is precisely the reason why many WHS users are backing up their server, too. In other words, they're backing up their backups. In addition, the new version of WHS cannot be used to update a server using the previous version. The change is so dramatic, anyone wanting to use the new version would have to start all over again. Although I could manage, the thought is a turn-off to me.

Perhaps the biggest reason for no longer liking WHS: Since WHS uses a database-like structure, I feel this greatly increases the potential for losing your data. In other words, the machine must work, the OS must boot, the disks must be readable, and the database must not be corrupted. That last one is the game changer, I think. If the database is corrupted, you can lose everything! Not just some data or some backups, but everything.

So, for all of the above reasons, I'm shying away from WHS and also from the "database" style of data storage.

As for cloud storage, although I use it for file sharing, I haven't imagined trying to use it for recovery from an OS disk failure. So, cloud storage is not favored, either.

Now, frankly, I'm not even sure how FreeNAS saves its data, but when combined with using ZFS, I suspect the likelihood for corrupting your data is significantly reduced. In addition, if my FreeNAS server also used mirroring, I think I'd feel much, much safer.

So, I think I may have a little more homework to do, but right now I'm focusing on FreeNAS with ZFS in a mirrored environment. Is that making any sense?

Thank you again, SMAX.

Tony M.

But from the link that I provide, it appears that you can backup centrally stored (and even use a plug-in to backup the back ups of files stored locally on computers that are backed up to the WHS...see one of the comments) to an external drive that is connected to the WHS device. You can then disconnect that external drive and store it off-site...and if needed connect it directly to a computer and get full access to your files...even if the WHS hoses on you.

Now, it does seem as if upgrading from WHS v1 to WHS 2011 is a pain in the rear (I found a site that described the process). And there seems to be other issues.

So, I am not necessarily pushing the idea of sticking with WHS, but I am not sure where you really think it fails for you.

Regardless of what option you do, if you are storing files centrally on a server (whether WHS, some "full" Windows Server, a NAS, etc), then you will need to backup that server. As a case in point, I use a Netgear ReadyNAS (and used a LaCie NAS in the past). It is a 4 disk RAID setup, so I have some redundancy in the NAS itself. I, however, still need to backup that device in some other manner so that I have a backup of any files stored ONLY on that device. Now, the Netgear ReadyNAS devices can backup from one ReadyNAS to another ReadyNAS automatically. I believe that has a setup like this as he has multiple ReadyNAS' at this point...I only have the one. So, I use a more "conventional" backup. I will also setup as share on the ReadyNAS to use as Time Machine backup location for my two Macs...but I have not gotten around to this yet. This will be like the backing up of client computers that WHS does.

The end result is that it can get messy depending on what you want to do, especially if you allow users to locally store files on their computers. No matter what you do, backing up of local computer files can be problematic. The easiest method is to have some sort of automatic backup that then backs up to a server...but that only works when the computer has a network connection AND when it is powered on.

[TonyRony]

Yes, SMAX. I think the new version of WHS allows you to backup to an attached external hard drive. However, that's the new version. In a previous message in this thread, I might have mentioned how annoyed I am that the new version of WHS cannot be applied to the old version as an update. In a way, that's a minor issue, but, well, I've added that to my list of the reasons why I'm somewhat "prejudiced" against WHS.

There are other reasons for my disfavoring WHS:

(1) I think I prefer a backup configuration that uses mirroring

(2) Although I'm not even sure how FreeNAS works, I already know that WHS stores the data it backs up in a "database." I prefer to avoid the database type of arrangement for the reason I mentioned in my previous post: It creates another critical point of failure. For instance, with the exception of critical disk locations (such as the boot sector, partition table, etc.), suppose one sector on your hard drive got corrupted. This has the potential for messing up just one file, right? But if a corrupted sector affected the WHS database and prevented it from mounting, you'd wind up losing your whole database of backups. So, not only does this pose another point of failure, but its a tremendous leap that could wipe out everything!

So, after I'm finished researching all this, although I might ultimately decide to get the new WHS, I know I would do so only half-heartedly.

Yes, you're correct. If I'm using a server to host files that are not stored elsewhere, then they'll need to be backed up, so that's the reason for my interest in mirroring.

In closing this message, I want to warmly thank you for your insightful and challenging posts. Your messages have helped me to think this out and discover the shortcomings and advantages to the solutions I'm considering. I fully admit not knowing much about FreeNAS, but since it's so wildly popular, this has served as motivation to check into it further. And as I realized that FreeNAS can be integrated with ZFS and discovering that ZFS is more fault-tolerant than many other file systems, this helped me to focus my decision to look into FreeNAS further.

Thank you again, SMAX, and if you think of something you'd like to add, please don't hesitate.

Tony M.

[smax013]

TonyRony, on 08 March 2012 - 04:34 PM, said:

Yes, SMAX. I think the new version of WHS allows you to backup to an attached external hard drive. However, that's the new version.

I believe the original version (aka "v1") also allows backing up of WHS based files to an external drive attached to your WHS device. At least, that is what this link implies:

http://www.davescomp...home-server-v1/

It looks to be the same process as what was outlined in that previous link I supplied.

Thus, it appears that you should have the ability to backup any files stored on the WHS device.

Quote

In a previous message in this thread, I might have mentioned how annoyed I am that the new version of WHS cannot be applied to the old version as an update. In a way, that's a minor issue, but, well, I've added that to my list of the reasons why I'm somewhat "prejudiced" against WHS.

There are other reasons for my disfavoring WHS:

(1) I think I prefer a backup configuration that uses mirroring

Mirroring alone (i.e. RAID 1) or even more "advanced" RAID options (such as RAID 5, etc) should not be considered a true "backup". Yes, it makes a duplicate of the files on another drive so that if ONE drive dies on you, then you should be fine. But, RAID options does not help with data corruption that might occur. If a file gets corrupted on one drive then it will be corrupted on the other drive. Thus, even if you are using a redundant RAID (i.e. RAID 1 or RAID 5 or etc), you should still be backing up those files to frequently by some other method. My ReadyNAS uses a "proprietary" version of RAID 5 (I believe), but I still backup my key files that I store on it to an external drive on occasion.

Quote

(2) Although I'm not even sure how FreeNAS works, I already know that WHS stores the data it backs up in a "database." I prefer to avoid the database type of arrangement for the reason I mentioned in my previous post: It creates another critical point of failure. For instance, with the exception of critical disk locations (such as the boot sector, partition table, etc.), suppose one sector on your hard drive got corrupted. This has the potential for messing up just one file, right? But if a corrupted sector affected the WHS database and prevented it from mounting, you'd wind up losing your whole database of backups. So, not only does this pose another point of failure, but its a tremendous leap that could wipe out everything!

So, after I'm finished researching all this, although I might ultimately decide to get the new WHS, I know I would do so only half-heartedly.

I am no expert on WHS by any means, but it seems from what I have found that it is only the BACKUPS of local computers that get stored on the WHS as some sort of a database. As I understand it, files that are actually stored on the WHS device (rather than stored on local computer that then get backed up to the WHS) are stored as actual files and when you use the external drive backup option (see above), those files get dumped to the external drive in a way that can be accessed just in Windows Explorer. But...I could be wrong.

There is supposedly also a way to backup those "backup databases" using this plugin:

http://www.mediasmar...dd-ins/#WHSBDBB

Quote

Yes, you're correct. If I'm using a server to host files that are not stored elsewhere, then they'll need to be backed up, so that's the reason for my interest in mirroring.

In closing this message, I want to warmly thank you for your insightful and challenging posts. Your messages have helped me to think this out and discover the shortcomings and advantages to the solutions I'm considering. I fully admit not knowing much about FreeNAS, but since it's so wildly popular, this has served as motivation to check into it further. And as I realized that FreeNAS can be integrated with ZFS and discovering that ZFS is more fault-tolerant than many other file systems, this helped me to focus my decision to look into FreeNAS further.

Thank you again, SMAX, and if you think of something you'd like to add, please don't hesitate.

Tony M.

I don't know much about FreeNAS either. It certainly seems like it could be a viable option if you want to purely store files on a central server. But, if you want to still allow files to be stored on the local computers, then you will need some method to still back those files up to the FreeNAS server.

I will also note that the downside of storing files on a central server is that you lose access to those files from any laptops when you are outside the house unless you set up some remote access...but then that remote access will require an Internet connection for the laptop when out of the house. Thus, I personally find it impossible to completely go to pure 100% storage of files on a central server. To me, there will always be some reason to store some files on local computers.

This post has been edited by smax013: 08 March 2012 - 06:42 PM