Online Website Backup Options?

pdcull writes "I can't be the only person on the planet who has this problem: I have a couple of websites, with around 2 GB of space in use on my hosting provider, plus a few MySQL databases. I need to keep up-to-date backups, as my host provides only a minimal backup function. However, with a Net connection that only gets to 150 Kbps on a good day, there is no way I can guarantee a decent backup on my home PC using FTP. So my question is: does anybody provide an online service where I can feed them a URL, an FTP password, and some money, and they will post me DVDs with my websites on them? If such services do exist (the closest I found was a site that promised to send CDs and had a special deal for customers that had expired in June!), has anybody had experience with them which they could share? Any recommendations of services to use or to avoid?"

Why not use an online solution?

Rather than "posting DVDs" I'd go for something like Amazon's S3 and just dump the backup to them. Here is a list of S3 Backup solutions [zawodny.com] that would do the job.

I've personally moved away from hard-media as much as possible because the issue on restore is normally about the speed to get it back on the server and its there that online solutions really win as they have the peering arrangements to get you the bandwidth.

Re:Why not use an online solution?

Similarly, I'm not using DVDs etc. for my server backup. A few years back, seeing how much my provider would charge me for a decent amount of backup space, I opted to get an additional server instead; the second server now provides
secondary DNS, secondary MX to my regular system, but also has all data for a cold-standby ( I would still need to change addresses in DNS manually in case of a disaster, and bring up services, but pretty much all the data is in place).

The data is synchronised between both servers several times a day - first backed up locally to a second disk on the same machine, then rsynced between the two...

The solution was cheaper than the cost of the backup, and gives me extra flexibility in terms of what I can do. The only 'cost' is that both machines sacrificed disk space to be back-up for the other (since both machines have >400GB in disk space, giving up even half the disk space of each machine isn't a big limitation - at least, not for *my* needs. YMMV).

Re:Why not use an online solution?

Sure, it will - but that problem you will have with a provider-based backup as well. If your data gets corrupted without you noticing, your backup will 'save' corrupt data...

What you can do to at least partially save yourself is to at least make sure the rsync users are jailed and can only rsync to the target directory, not being able to access anything else.

Why not use Suso?

Sorry for the self plug, but this just seems silly. Your web host should be backing up your website and offer you restorations. I guess this isn't a standard feature any more. But it is at Suso [suso.com]. We backup your site and databases everyday. And can restore them for you for free.

Re:Why not use Suso?

One thing that I've learned though is you can not rely on a hosting company's backup to necessarily be timely, reliable, and/or convenient. If you want to backup multiple times during the day, have multiple generations of backups, be able to very quickly restore if need be, all can make the hosting backup unattractive. I'm not saying yours is that way, just with some of the hosting companies I've dealt with in the past.

This also doesn't take into consideration the best-practice of having your backups off-site for disaster recovery. It doesn't help very much to have your backup server/drive/whatever 1U down in the rack when the building collapses, has a fire, floods, etc destroying everything in it.

Why FTP? Use rsync.

It seems like the only problem with your home computer is FTP. Why not use rsync, which does things much more intelligently - and with checksumming, guarantees correct data?

The first time would be slow, but after that, things would go MUCH faster. Shoot, if you set up SSH keys, you can automate the entire process.

yeah, use rsync.

I 100% agree with NerveGas on the rsync suggestion. I use it in reverse to backup my laptop to my hosting provider.

Here's the one thing to remember in terms of rsync. It's going to be the CURRENT snapshot of your data. Not a big deal, except if you're doing development and find out a week later that changes you made to your DB have had unintended consequences. If you've rsynced, you're going to want to have made additional local backups on a regular basis so you can roll back to one of those snapshots prior to when you hosed your DB. Apologies if that was obvious, but rsync is the transfer mechanism. You'll still want to manage archives locally.

Seth

Re:yeah, use rsync.

Then what you need is rdiff-backup, works like rsync except it keeps older copies stored as diffs.

As for FTP, why the hell does anyone still use ftp? It's insecure, works badly with nat (which is all too common) and really offers nothing you don't get from other protocols.

Re:yeah, use rsync.

Then what you need is rdiff-backup, works like rsync except it keeps older copies stored as diffs.

Another option is to use the --link-dest option to rsync. You give rsync a list of the older backups (with --link-dest), and the new backup is made using hard links to the old files where they're identical.
I haven't looked at rdiff-backup, it probably provides similar functionality.

Part of my backups script (written for zsh):

setopt nullglob
older=($backups/*(/om))
unsetopt nullglob

rsync --verbose -8 --archive --recursive --link-dest=${^older[1,20]} \
                        user@server:/ $backups/$date/

Re:yeah, use rsync.

There is also the --backup --backup-dir options (you'll need both). It keeps a copy of the files that have been deleted or changed, if you use a script to keep it in seperate directories you'll have a pretty good history of all the changes.

Re:Why FTP? Use rsync.

Many hosting providers do not have this option and not even sftp. :-/

So that makes that you are stuck with FTP or need to change hosting provider, which is also not always an option.

Re:Why FTP? Use rsync.

I use rsync on a few dozen systems here, some of which are over 1TB in size. Rsync works very well for me. Keep in mind that if you are rsyncing an open file such as a database, the rsync'd copy may be in an inconsistent state if changes are not fully committed as rsync passes through the file. There are a few options here for your database. First one that comes to mind is to close or commit and suspend/lock it, make a copy of it, and then unsuspend it. Then just let it back up the whole thing, and if you need to restore, overwrite the DB with the copy that was made after restoring. The time the DB is offline for the local copy will be much less than the time it takes rsync to pass through the DB, and will always leave you with a coherent DB backup.

If your connection is slow, and if you are backing up large files, (both of which sound true for you?) be sure to use the keep-partial option.

One of my connections is particularly slow and unreliable. (it's a user desktop over a slow connection) For that one I have made special arrangements to cron once an hour instead of once a day. It attempts the backup, which is often interrupted by the user sleeping/shutting down the machine. So it keeps trying it every hour it's on, until a backup completes successfully. Then it resets the 24 hr counter and won't attempt again for another day. That way I am getting backups as close to every 24 hrs as possible, without more.

Another poster mentioned incrementals, which is not something I need here. In addition to using a version of rsync that does incrementals, you could also use something off-the-shelf/common like retrospect that does incremental but wouldn't normally work for your server, and instead of running that over the internet, run it on the local backup you are rsyncing to. If you need to go back in time a bit still can, but without figuring a way to jimmy in rsync through your network limits.

Actually, his only problem is....

... his slow internet connection, and wants to pay something to not have to move files over his slow internet connection.

How about:

- Pay for a hosting provider that DOES provide real backup solutions....
- Pay for a real broadband connection so you CAN download your site....

As with most things that are 'important'...

Right, Fast or Cheap - pick two.

Gmail backup

You may have to use extra tools to break your archive into seperate chunks fitting Gmail's maximum attachment size, but I've used Gmail to backup a relative small (~20mb) website. The trick is to make one complete backup, then make incremental backups using rdiff-backup. I have this done daily with a cron job, sending the bz2'ed diff to a Gmail account. Every month, it will make a complete backup again.

And a seperate Gmail account for the backup of the mysql database.

This may be harder to do with a 2GB website, i guess, since Gmail provides atm about 6GB of space which will probably last you about 2 months. Of course you could use multiple gmail accounts or automated deletion of older archives...

But seriously, 2GB isn't too hard to do your from own PC if you only handle diffs. The first time download would take a while, but incremental backups shouldn't take too long unless your site changes drastically all the time.

Re:Gmail backup

This strikes me as a really dumb thing to do; as both a) using it for data storage rather than primarily email storage and b) signing up for multiple accounts are both violations of the gmail TOS, you are just asking for your backups to not be available when you most need them.

Wow

Wow! So you are asking somebody to download your website's home folder and database, look at the password and private information of members, and deliver you dvd that is ready to be restored with rootkit along?

Re:Wow

Yeah, I had noticed the complete lack of paranoia in the original post as well.

I had the same problem...

After looking at the available options, I decided that there was nothing which met my criteria for convenience, efficiency, and security. So I decided to create my own.

I'm looking for beta testers: http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2008-05-06-tarsnap-beta-testing.html [daemonology.net]

rsync - it's in the tag

rsync to get the data, cp -al to keep snapshots. I've been using this for years to manage TB of data over relatively low-speed links. You'll take a hit first-time (so kick it off at night, kill it in the morning, and the next night just execute the same command and it'll eventually catch up, then cp -al it, then lather rinse, repeat. This page: http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rsync_snapshots/ [mikerubel.org] has been about for years. Use it!

Give them here

Send me your FTP details and some cash and I'll...backup...your data.

I sure hope you're no UK based...

...because if you are and you're planning to sent personal data (there can't be many 2GB web sites that contain no personal data at all) on DVD through the mail, you might want to look at recent pronouncements from the Information Commissioner. A large fine could be waiting for you if you go down that route.

How quickly do you need it back?

One thing a lot of people forget when they propose backup systems is not just how quickly can you take the backup, but how quickly do you need it back?

A sync to your own PC with rsync will, once the first one's done, be very fast and efficient. If you're paranoid and want to ensure you can restore to a point in time in the last month, once the rsync is complete you can then copy the snapshot that's on your PC elsewhere.

But you said yourself that your internet link isn't particularly fast. If you can't live with your site being unavailable for some time, what are you going to do if/when the time comes that you have to restore the data?

why not try ...

NSA.gov?
NSA: We backup your data so you won't have to!

How it works:
First, edit each page on your website ab add the following meta tags: how-to, build, allah, infidels, bomb (or just any of the last three, if you're in a hurry).

On the plus side, you don't need to give them your money, nor your password.

On the minus side ... there is no minus side (I mean, who needs to travel anyway?)

Posting anonymously as I have moderated in this thread (that, and they already know where I live).

Shared hosting

OK, I keep hearing "use rsync" or other software. What about those of us who use shared web hosting, and don't get a unix shell, but only a control panel? Or who have a shell, but uncaring or incompetent admins who won't or can't install rsync? I know the standard slashdot response is "get a new host that does" but there are dozens of legitimate reasons that someone could be saddled with this kind of web host.

Thanks for your comments...

Hi everyone, I didn't mention in my question that where I'm living (Rio de Janeiro slum) there aren't that many options for internet access. Also, as all my sites are my very much not-for-profit, I'm limited as to how much I can spend on my hosting plan. I've been using Lunarpages for a number of years now, and generally find them very good, although if I stupidly overwrite a file, or want to go back to a previous version of something, I'm out of luck. As I am a lazy (read time-challenged) individual, I tend to use Pmwiki and maintain my sites online, hence my need for regular, physical backups. Anyway, thanks everyone for your help, I still can't help thinking that somebody must be able to make a pile of cash offering such as service to non-techie site owners...