Why backup isn't enough

By | May 28, 2010, 9:41am PDT

You can back up your data daily - even hourly - and still lose data. Here’s how it happened to me.

My backup regimen
I run 3 backups:

  • Time Machine. Part of Mac OS X, Time Machine backs up changed files in my user account every hour. Like too much of Apple’s tech these days, the UI is great, the underlying tech not so much.
  • Carbon Copy Cloner. My 300 GB VelociRaptor system disk and a 2 drive, 2 TB RAID 0 are cloned nightly. 2 copies of everything.
  • Online backup. My critical documents are backed up to an online provider.

Given that most people don’t back up at all, I should be golden, right? But I’m not.

The limits of backup
As explained in How Microsoft puts your data at risk our Windows, Mac and (most) Linux file systems are, in a word, junk. Architected decades ago in a world of costly storage and puny CPUs they will slowly hose your data.

Flaky hardware, inconsistent error handling, bit rot, phantom writes and more give consumer file systems problems they can’t handle. And backup can’t handle them either.

In fact, backup just spreads the corruption.

Let’s say you you have a large PDF. You read it, make a couple of annotations, save and then close it. Unbeknownst to you and your file system the save corrupts the file. A bad write perhaps.

The corrupted file now gets saved by Time Machine in the next hour. Then cloned to the backup drive that night. Now I’ve got 3 corrupted files.

But wait! Time Machine keeps old versions for months, as do some of the online backup providers. I still have a good copy.

Until several months pass. Then all I’ve got are corrupted copies. That’s what happened to me.

The textbook answer
If you backup a corrupted file you still have a corrupted file. Big company IT shops have dealt with this problem for decades and they have the answer: archiving.

They take copies of files and place them in a read-only archive. If the file is later corrupted on the active storage, they go to the archive and pull out the - hopefully - uncorrupted copy.

But if few people backup even fewer make archives: PC archiving software is geeky; the storage requirements are large; and the perceived benefit is low.

The Storage Bits take
Those negatives around archiving aren’t changing. Home users will rarely archive even 2 decades from now, despite backing up. It is just too boring and expensive.

Which gets back to yesterday’s post Apple’s weak tech-fu. We need file systems that make data corruption rare.

As we store more files for longer times and look at them less often, data corruption will become more visible. Let’s get in front of this problem today.

Comments welcome, of course.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Storage Bits”

Topics

Robin Harris has been messing with computers for over 30 years and selling and marketing data storage for over 20 in companies large and small.

Disclosure

Robin Harris

Robin Harris is a president of TechnoQWAN, a consulting and analyst firm in northern Arizona. He also writes StorageMojo.com, a blog which accepts advertising from companies in the storage industry, and has a 25 year history with IT vendors. He has many industry contacts, many of whom are friends and all of whom he has opinions about. Robin has relationships with many companies in the technology industry. Every company he writes about may have sought to influence his opinion through carefully-crafted marketing messages and self-serving white papers, gifts ranging from desk calendars, t-shirts, lunches and trips as well as analyst or consulting assignments. He also invests in some technology companies. He may accept payment for services in stock as well. Robin discloses financial investments in or client relationships with companies named in Storage Bits. To help readers sort out the gold from the dross in his writings, Robin tries to communicate his reasons as clearly as he can. If you agree, you are intelligent and discerning. If you disagree, well, you disagree. In all cases, Robin encourages readers to subject everything they read, see or hear on the internet or from politicians to some simple questions: * What assumptions are implicit in the world view and judgments of the author? * What, if any, is the factual basis for the opinions the author expresses? * Is it reasonable, logical and clear? Your critical faculties: use ‘em or lose ‘em!

Biography

Robin Harris

Harris has been messing with computers for over 30 years and selling and marketing data storage for over 20 in companies large and small. He introduced a couple of multi-billion dollar storage products (DLT, the first Fibre Channel array) to market, as well as a many smaller ones. Earlier he spent 10 years marketing servers and networks. After leaving corporate life he founded TechnoQWAN, a consulting and analyst firm. He also developed StorageMojo into one of the top storage industry blogs.

Robin writes, consults, coaches and lives among the mountains of northern Arizona.

Talkback Most Recent of 58 Talkback(s)

  • I thought Apple was going to steal ZFS?
    Epic fail!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
    ZDNet Gravatar
    NonZealot
    28th May 2010
  • RE: Why backup isn't enough
    What options are even available to home users to archive
    ZDNet Gravatar
    justinkearney
    28th May 2010
  • If you use a superior OS (Windows), you can use Windows Home Server
    If you are using something like OS X though, your options are limited to hacking a new file system into your OS. The instructions are very simple:
    http://lildude.co.uk/howto-create-a-zfs-filesystem-os-x-leopard

    Don't be put off by things like:
    Now for the important part: right at the beginning, I said ZFS WILL crash your Mac.
    Your Mac will crash a lot but it won't lose any data!!!
    ZDNet Gravatar
    NonZealot
    28th May 2010
  • NTFS is from the early 90s. wow how modern
    You're just upset because you invested in MS stock instead of Apple stock, HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
    @NonZealot
    ZDNet Gravatar
    GoPower
    28th May 2010
  • No, I invested in MS software
    And I haven't had any of the troubles that Robin is facing on his Apple software. Go me!!!

    PS OS X's kernel is from the mid 80s. wow how modern.
    Cue the double standards...
    ZDNet Gravatar
    NonZealot
    28th May 2010
  • Why? It wouldn't help
    Sadly NonZealot doesn't understand.

    Robin point is clear:

    "our Windows, Mac and (most) Linux file systems are, in a word, junk".

    Whilst I wouldn't call them junk, there is certainly room for improvement.

    WHS doesn't help.

    Archiving is the solution as Robin correctly points out, until we've an infallible filesystem. WHS "archiving" suffers from the same limitations as Time Machine.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Richard Flude
    29th May 2010
  • It's called your DVD burner
    Just make an archive copy. Making sure, of course, that it's good before you make the copy. Something the blog author conveniently leaves out of his rant. If he'd archived the bad copy, he'd be just as screwed.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    frgough
    28th May 2010
  • RE: Why backup isn't enough
    @frgough

    Some people have TOO MUCH DATA to do that. A DVD only keeps 4GB's of stuff. We are now at drives that are 1-2 TB's!

    There has to be a new filesystem that is focused on making sure that things are saved to the hard drives properly, the article writer is right about that.

    However, NTFS is VERY OLD and a lot of people wouldn't want to do the rejiggering that would be needed for a new file system.
    Remember how many people bitched about FAT and FAT32 being dropped?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Lerianis10
    6th Sep 2010
  • RE: Why backup isn't enough
    @justinkearney Hey Justin look into Backup Exec System Recovery. It allows you to backup online and you can run a snap shot prior to modifications. I use it and it just works.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    kjgslg@...
    28th May 2010
  • RE: Why backup isn't enough
    @kjgslg@... We are using it in our company, and I can say is not so simple to use, it has poor documentation and a nightimare translation; it also has a strange bug to restore sharepoint.
    Yes, it works, but it is not for mass market.

    Marco Mangiante
    ZDNet Gravatar
    marcomangiante
    28th May 2010
  • RE: Why backup isn't enough
    @justinkearney
    You can do what my wife and I did. We bought a spindle of DVD+RW disks and archived our important files to them. She gives her set to her mom and I take my set to work, so we have not only an archive but also an offsite backup. If our house burns down while we're on vacation, we won't lose all our data. Occasionally we bring back the disks and update them.

    Of course, this form of archiving isn't very thorough, but it's a lot better than what most people do.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    LeonBA
    1st Jul 2010
  • There is always a potential point of failure.
    CD/DVD/BD cracks, HD crashes, Bad data gets replicated out and overwrites the good. Can go so far as to have all of the different sequences of backup's possible, but does the average user need that kind of redundancy? Not likely.

    I guess my recommendation for a back up scheme is fairly simple. Have a local backup such as Time Machine or a USB HD. Have an online option for off site storage, for $50 a year, well worth it. And do a DVD/BD medium backup monthly or Quarterly, and stick that in a safety deposit box somewhere.

    With that is it still possible to have some data loss? probably. Likely? well I am not statistician, but my guess is you have better odds of getting struck by lightning.

    I have data as old as 10 years. I don't ever really do anything with it, but it is there. Likelihood I will ever need it? very remote. But it keeps getting backed up, and archived. Would it be the end of the world if I lost it? Not likely. Aside from tax records, I am a firm believer in the idea that if you don't use something within 6 months, the likelihood is that you never will.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Snooki_smoosh_smoosh
    28th May 2010
  • RE: Why backup isn't enough
    @JM1981 I totally agree. Btw, I'm a big supporter of that last line you wrote.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Arm A. Geddon
    28th May 2010
  • RE: Why backup isn't enough
    @JM1981

    Online backups are NOT worth it when they give 2GB's of space and people have 1TB of data to back up!

    No, a better thing is to have a double backup system: one on a SEPARATE internal hard drive that is ONLY for backups, and another one on an EXTERNAL hard drive.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Lerianis10
    6th Sep 2010
  • Maybe I'm just dumb...
    ... but your basic argument seems to be that you can't get your data when the backup has been corrupted? Well...duh.

    Time machine is just a slick "Itunes" -type interface on a cumulative backup schema. There aren't any new technologies there, it's just "pretty". The file dependencies grow over time. Perhaps even more so in Apple boxes (maybe not a 1-for-1 dependency?). I don't know if they use data-deduplication (aka: putting all your eggs in one old basket).

    Every now and again one should start from scratch and have a data backup built from current data, and not build on a leaning tower of 3-year old data backups on top of 5-year old data backups. After all, every type of storage media that I've ever heard of (other than perhaps stone tablets) eventually physically corrodes and loses data. Well duh (again). Sigh.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    rock06r
    28th May 2010

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources