I am trying to set up a backup to Amazon S3 servers using duply, which is a front-end for duplicity.
When I create a duply profile, this message is returned:
IMPORTANT:
Copy the _whole_ profile folder after the first backup to a safe place.
It contains everything needed to restore your backups. You will need
it if you have to restore the backup from another system (e.g. after a
system crash). Keep access to these files restricted as they contain
_all_ informations (gpg data, ftp data) to access and modify your backups.
Repeat this step after _all_ configuration changes. Some configuration
options are crucial for restoration.
What is a reasonable way to go about doing this?
My purpose for setting up an encrypted off-site backup is that I don't want to lose all my data if there is physical damage (fire, etc.) to my home.
So, saving this information in a thumb drive doesn't seem like a good idea, since the thumb drive would also be destroyed in such an event.
Saving this information on the Amazon S3 server itself seems like it would completely compromise the encryption.
If not these two options, where does one save it?
how about tar'ing the profile folder and encrypt it with gpg (long symmetric passphrase or against your personal private key) and saving it off-site?
of course you can use anything else that can securely encrypt archives/files.
..ede/duply.net
PS: never use thumbdrives/flash based memory for archiving purposes. when not connected regularly to power they lose memory cell content because it is not refreshed.
Save it on several flash drives, put one in a bank safe deposit vault, they are not expensive.
Related
Use Case:
Say I wanted to create a realtime-collaborative document editing system.
In this scenario many users could create and collaborate on many documents.
Due to client-device constraints, it's not possible for any client to keep a replica of all documents, only just a handful.
There needs to be central storage server where all documents always live, and this server is always backed up.
Each client can 'subscribe' to any document, and all clients subscribed can see realtime changes of all other clients subscribed/editing the same document.
Questions:
Since each client can't store all documents, there needs to be a way to remove the replicas of 'old' documents from the client, without deleting the document from the central store, ideally based on an automatic least-recently-used approach. How is this handled in gun?
In gun, how can a document be deleted from the central store, so it's then effectively permanently removed from, and no longer accessible to, all clients?
When a document is deleted from the central store, how is the physical storage space ever actually reclaimed for later use?
Great questions, #user2672083 . Here is the current lay out:
Collaborative realtime document editing is possible with gun. Here is a quick prototype I recorded a long time ago, however there are no full pre-built examples/implementations yet.
Not all data is stored on every client by default. The browser only keeps the data it requests/gets/subscribes to.
The default server already acts as a backup. I recommend using the S3 storage adapter, because then you do not have to worry about running out of disk space.
Removing old replicas. Currently, if I want the server to act as a central "master", I just put a localStorage.clear() at the top of my browser code. This will force the browser to have to always load the latest from the server. This is not ideal though, an LRU specific feature is coming soon according to the roadmap.
Permanently removing data and reclaiming space. While this should be easy for a central setup, because gun is P2P by default, it uses a technique called tombstoning to delete data. Given a lot of requests (like yours) for LRU/TTL/GC/deleting, there will be better support for this in the future. Currently, you have to use a mix of rm data.json, localStorage.clear() and 30 day lifecycles on S3 to get this to work. This will be more integrated/easier in the future.
Now a question for you: What are you working on, and how can I help? Many of the things you asked about are possible (with some work) now, but slated to be the focus of the next version of gun - I'd love to get your feedback as we build this out.
All peers reply to requests for data (#2), meaning that localStorage and the server will both reply. Because localStorage is physically closer to a user, it will reply first/fastest and then replies from the server will be merged. GUN does not try each peer "in sequence" doing try/catch cascades, GUN replies from all peers in parallel.
GUN has swappable storage and transport interfaces, so yes, it is easy to build other layers on top or into it.
I have flat files in which I store data and retrieve it instead of storing to database. This is temporary and may last for couple of months.I was wondering If I should be using EBS or S3. EBS is mainly used for I/O , S3 for content delivery , but S3 is on use you go model and EBS is you have to pay for the volume purchased ?
Pls guide, which one is better ?
S3 sounds like it's more appropriate for your use case.
S3 is object storage. Think of it as an Amazon-run file server. (Objects are not exactly equal to files, but it's close enough here.) You tell S3 to put a file, it'll store it. You tell S3 to get a file, it'll get return it. You tell S3 to delete it, it's gone. This is easy to work with and very scalable.
EBS is block storage. Think of it as an Amazon-run external hard drive. You can plug an EBS volume into an EC2 virtual machine, or you access it over the Internet via AWS Storage Gateway. Like an external hard drive, you can only plug it into one computer at a time. The size is set up front, and while there are ways to grow and shrink it, you're paying for all the bits all the time. It's also much more complex than S3, since it has to provide strong consistency guarantees for the entire volume, instead of just on a file-by-file basis.
To build on the good answer from willglynn. If you are interacting with the data regularly, or need more file-system-like access you might consider EBS more strongly.
If the amount of data is relatively small and you read and write to the data store regularly, you might consider something like elasticache for in-memory storage which would likely be superior performance-wise then using s3 or EBS.
Similarly, you might look at DynamoDb for document type storage, especially if you need to be able to search/filter across your data objects.
Point 1) You can use both S3 and EBS for this option. If you want reduced latency and file sizes are bigger then EBS is better option.
Point 2) If you want lower costs, then S3 is a better option.
From what you describe, S3 will be the most cost-effective and likely easiest solution.
Pros to S3:
1. You can access the data from anywhere. You don't need to spin up an EC2 instance.
2. Crazy data durability numbers.
3. Nice versioning story around buckets.
4. Cheaper than EBS
Pros to EBS
1. Handy to have the data on a file system in EC2. That let you do normal processing with the Unix pipeline.
2. Random Access patterns work as you would expect.
3. It's a drive. Everyone knows how to deal with files on drives.
If you want to get away from a flat file, DynamoDB provides a nice set of interfaces for putting lots and lots of rows into a table, then running operations against those rows.
I run an image sharing website that has over 1 million images (~150GB). I'm currently storing these on a hard drive in my dedicated server, but I'm quickly running out of space, so I'd like to move them to Amazon S3.
I've tried doing an RSYNC and it took RSYNC over a day just to scan and create the list of image files. After another day of transferring, it was only 7% complete and had slowed my server down to a crawl, so I had to cancel.
Is there a better way to do this, such as GZIP them to another local hard drive and then transfer / unzip that single file?
I'm also wondering whether it makes sense to store these files in multiple subdirectories or is it fine to have all million+ files in the same directory?
One option might be to perform the migration in a lazy fashion.
All new images go to Amazon S3.
Any requests for images not yet on Amazon trigger a migration of that one image to Amazon S3. (queue it up)
This should fairly quickly get all recent or commonly fetched images moved over to Amazon and will thus reduce the load on your server. You can then add another task that migrates the others over slowly whenever the server is least busy.
Given that the files do not exist (yet) on S3, sending them as an archive file should be quicker than using a synchronization protocol.
However, compressing the archive won't help much (if at all) for image files, assuming that the image files are already stored in a compressed format such as JPEG.
Transmitting ~150 Gbytes of data is going to consume a lot of network bandwidth for a long time. This will be the same if you try to use HTTP or FTP instead of RSYNC to do the transfer. An offline transfer would be better if possible; e.g. sending a hard disc, or a set of tapes or DVDs.
Putting a million files into one flat directory is a bad idea from a performance perspective. while some file systems would cope with this fairly well with O(logN) filename lookup times, others do not with O(N) filename lookup. Multiply that by N to access all files in a directory. An additional problem is that utilities that need to access files in order of file names may slow down significantly if they need to sort a million file names. (This may partly explain why rsync took 1 day to do the indexing.)
Putting all of your image files in one directory is a bad idea from a management perspective; e.g. for doing backups, archiving stuff, moving stuff around, expanding to multiple discs or file systems, etc.
One option you could use instead of transferring the files over the network is to put them on a harddrive and ship it to amazon's import/export service. You don't have to worry about saturating your server's network connection etc.
We have created a product that potentially will generate tons of requests for a data file that resides on our server. Currently we have a shared hosting server that runs a PHP script to query the DB and generate the data file for each user request. This is not efficient and has not been a problem so far but we want to move to a more scalable system so we're looking in to EC2. Our main concerns are being able to handle high amounts of traffic when they occur, and to provide low latency to users downloading the data files.
I'm not 100% sure on how this is all going to work yet but this is the idea:
We use an EC2 instance to host our admin panel and to generate the files that are being served to app users. When any admin makes a change that affects these data files (which are downloaded by users), we make a copy over to S3 using CloudFront. The idea here is to get data cached and waiting on S3 so we can keep our compute times low, and to use CloudFront to get low latency for all users requesting the files.
I am still learning the system and wanted to know if anyone had any feedback on this idea or insight in to how it all might work. I'm also curious about the purpose of projects like Cassandra. My understanding is that simply putting our application on EC2 servers makes it scalable by the nature of the servers. Is Cassandra just about keeping resource usage low, or is there a reason to use a system like this even when on EC2?
CloudFront: http://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/
EC2: http://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/
Cassandra: http://cassandra.apache.org/
Cassandra is a non-relational database engine and if this is what you need, you should first evaluate Amazon's SimpleDB : a non-relational database engine built on top of S3.
If the file only needs to be updated based on time (daily, hourly, ...) then this seems like a reasonable solution. But you may consider placing a load balancer in front of 2 EC2 images, each running a copy of your application. This would make it easier to scale later and safer if one instance fails.
Some other services you should read up on:
http://aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/ -- Amazons load balancer solution.
http://aws.amazon.com/sqs/ -- Used to pass messages between systems, in your DA (distributed architecture). For example if you wanted the systems that create the data file to be different than the ones hosting the site.
http://aws.amazon.com/autoscaling/ -- Allows you to adjust the number of instances online based on traffic
Make sure to have a good backup process with EC2, snapshot your OS drive often and place any volatile data (e.g. a database files) on an EBS block. EC2 doesn't fail often but when it does you don't have access to the hardware, and if you have an up to date snapshot you can just kick a new instance online.
Depending on the datasets, Cassandra can also significantly improve response times for queries.
There is an excellent explanation of the data structure used in NoSQL solutions that may help you see if this is an appropriate solution to help:
WTF is a Super Column
What is the easiest way to duplicate an entire Amazon S3 bucket to a bucket in a different account?
Ideally, we'd like to duplicate the bucket nightly to a different account in Amazon's European data center for backup purposes.
One thing to consider is that you might want to have whatever is doing this running in an Amazon EC2 VM. If you have your backup running outside of Amazon's cloud then you pay for the data transfer both ways. If you run in an EC2 VM, you pay no bandwidth fees (although I'm not sure if this is true when going between the North American and European stores) - only for the wall time that the EC2 instance is running (and whatever it costs to store the EC2 VM, which should be minimal I think).
Cool, I may look into writing a script to host on Ec2. The main purpose of the backup is to guard against human error on our side -- if a user accidentally deletes a bucket or something like that.
If you're worried about deletion, you should probably look at S3's new Versioning feature.
I suspect there is no "automatic" way to do this. You'll just have to write a simple app that moves the files over. Depending on how you track the files in S3 you could move just the "changes" as well.
On a related note, I'm pretty sure Amazon does a darn good job backup up the data so I don't think you necessarily need to worry about data loss, unless your back up for archival purposes, or you want to safeguard against accidentally deleting files.
You can make an application or service that responsible to create two instances of AmazonS3Client one for the source and the other for the destination, then the source AmazonS3Client start looping in the source bucket and streaming objects in, and the destination AmazonS3Client streaming them out to the destination bucket.
Note: this doesn't work for cross-account syncing, but this works for cross-region on the same account.
For simply copying everything from one bucket to another, you can use the AWS CLI (https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/move-objects-s3-bucket/): aws s3 sync s3://SOURCE_BUCKET_NAME s3://NEW_BUCKET_NAME
In your case, you'll need the --source-region flag: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/reference/s3/sync.html
If you are moving an enormous amount of data, you can optimize how quickly it happens by finding ways to split the transfers into different groups: https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/s3-large-transfer-between-buckets/
There are a variety of ways to run this nightly. One is example is the AWS instance-schedule (personally unverified) https://docs.aws.amazon.com/solutions/latest/instance-scheduler/appendix-a.html