I want to create a long-term data archive of old stuff I don't need daily, but don't want to throw away either (e.g. all raw data of my thesis work). Optical media have failed me too often in the past, so now I am using an external USB disk and - to protect against accidental modification of the archive - I create ISO images of data batches and store these (and mount them on demand). The harddisk is NTFS formatted for portability (read/write for Linux and Windows, and at least readable for Macs).
My question is:
Are ISO images on external harddisks a good idea for long-term archiving data? How about bad disk sectors? It sure sounds easier for the OS to fsck a disk with 200 ISO images instead of 2,000,000 separate files, but is it? Should bad disk sectors be my primary worry when thinking about long term archives?
Any ideas - or alternatives - for an affordable long-term data storage concept would be appreciated.
First of all this question should be on SuperUser.
Nevertheless you strategy is is pretty solid. I would use disks in raid for added protection.
I you want to make sure the isos haven't changed you can take their md5sum when you store them and compare it to their md5sum when you retreive them.
You can use ISO image files, however they are neither very efficient nor in any way reliable. So the advantage of direct mount is only limited.
Maybe you need to combine both - store the ISOs in larger redundant archives (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchive) and then unpack them on demand (or just keep multiple copies, but then you should check and re-copy them regularly).
Related
To avoid questions about. Why do you use casandra in favour of another database. we have to because our custoner decided that Im my option a completely wrong decision.
In our Applikation we have to deal with PDF documents, i.e. Reader them and populate them with data.
So my intention was to hold the documents (templates) in the database read them and then do what we need to do with them.
I noticed that cassandra provieds a blob column type.
However for me it seems that this type has nothing to with a blob in qn Oracle or other relational database.
From what I understand is that cassandra is not for storing documnents and therefore it is not possible?
Or is the only way to make byte-array out of the document?
what is the intention of the blob column type?
The blob type in Cassandra is used to store raw bytes, so it's "theoretically" could be used to store PDF files as well (as bytes). But there is one thing that should be taken into consideration - Cassandra doesn't work well with big payloads - usual recommendation is to store 10s or 100s of Kb, not more than 1Mb. With bigger payloads, operations, such as repair, addition/removal of nodes, etc. could lead to increased overhead and performance degradation. On older versions of Cassandra (2.x/3.0) I have seen the situations when people couldn't add new nodes because join operation failed. It's a bit better situation with newer versions, but still it should be evaluated before jumping into implementation. It's recommended to do performance testing + some maintenance operations at scale to understand if it will work for your load. NoSQLBench is a great tool for such things.
It is possible to store binary files in a CQL blob column however the general recommendation is to only store a small amount of data in blobs, preferably 1MB or less for optimum performance.
For larger files, it is better to place them in an object store and only save the metadata in Cassandra.
Most large enterprises whose applications hold large amount of media files (music, video, photos, etc) typically store them in Amazon S3, Google Cloud Store or Azure Blob then store the metadata (such as URLs) of the files in Cassandra. These enterprises are household names in streaming services and social media apps. Cheers!
I am currently working on a website where, roughly 40 million documents and images should be served to it's users. I need suggestions on which method is the most suitable for storing content with subject to these requirements.
System should be highly available, scale-able and durable.
Files have to be stored permanently and users should be able to modify them.
Due to client restrictions, 3rd party object storage providers such as Amazon S3 and CDNs are not suitable.
File size of content can vary from 1 MB to 30 MB. (However about 90% of the files would be less than 2 MB)
Content retrieval latency is not much of a problem. Therefore indexing or caching is not very important.
I did some research and found out about the following solutions;
Storing content as BLOBs in databases.
Using GridFS to chunk and store content.
Storing content in a file server in directories using a hash and storing the metadata in a database.
Using a distributed file system such as GlusterFS or HDFS and storing the file metadata in a database.
The website is developed using PHP and Couchbase Community Edition is used as the database.
I would really appreciate any input.
Thank you.
I have been working on a similar system for last two years, the work is still in progress. However, requirements are slightly different from yours: modifications are not possible (I will try to explain why later), file sizes fall in range from several bytes to several megabytes, and, the most important one, the deduplication, which should be implemented both on the document and block levels. If two different users upload the same file to the storage, the only copy of the file should be kept. Also if two different files partially intersect with each other, it's necessary to store the only copy of the common part of these files.
But let's focus on your requirements, so deduplication is not the case. First of all, high availability implies replication. You'll have to store your file in several replicas (typically 2 or 3, but there are techniques to decrease data parity) on independent machines in order to stay alive in case if one of the storage servers in your backend dies. Also, taking into account the estimation of the data amount, it's clear that all your data just won't fit into a single server, so vertical scaling is not possible and you have to consider partitioning. Finally, you need to take into account concurrency control to avoid race conditions when two different clients are trying to write or update the same data simultaneously. This topic is close to the concept of transactions (I don't mean ACID literally, but something close). So, to summarize, these facts mean that you're are actually looking for distributed database designed to store BLOBs.
On of the biggest problems in distributed systems is difficulties with global state of the system. In brief, there are two approaches:
Choose leader that will communicate with other peers and maintain global state of the distributed system. This approach provides strong consistency and linearizability guarantees. The main disadvantage is that in this case leader becomes the single point of failure. If leader dies, either some observer must assign leader role to one of the replicas (common case for master-slave replication in RDBMS world), or remaining peers need to elect new one (algorithms like Paxos and Raft are designed to target this issue). Anyway, almost whole incoming system traffic goes through the leader. This leads to the "hot spots" in backend: the situation when CPU and IO costs are unevenly distributed across the system. By the way, Raft-based systems have very low write throughput (check etcd and consul limitations if you are interested).
Avoid global state at all. Weaken the guarantees to eventual consistency. Disable the update of files. If someone wants to edit the file, you need to save it as new file. Use the system which is organized as a peer-to-peer network. There is no peer in the cluster that keeps the full track of the system, so there is no single point of failure. This results in high write throughput and nice horizontal scalability.
So now let's discuss the options you've found:
Storing content as BLOBs in databases.
I don't think it's a good option to store files in traditional RDBMS because they provide optimizations for structured data and strong consistency, and you don't need neither of this. Also you'll have difficulties with backups and scaling. People usually don't use RDBMS in this way.
Using GridFS to chunk and store content.
I'm not sure, but it looks like GridFS is built on the top of MongoDB. Again, this is document-oriented database designed to store JSONs, not BLOBs. Also MongoDB had problems with a cluster for many years. MongoDB passed Jepsen tests only in 2017. This may mean that MongoDB cluster is not mature yet. Make performance and stress tests, if you go this way.
Storing content in a file server in directories using a hash and storing the metadata in a database.
This option means that you need to develop object storage on your own. Consider all the problems I've mentioned above.
Using a distributed file system such as GlusterFS or HDFS and storing the file metadata in a database.
I used neither of these solutions, but HDFS looks like overkill, because you get dependent on Hadoop stack. Have no idea about GlusterFS performance. Always consider the design of distributed file systems. If they have some kind of dedicated "metadata" serves, treat it as a single point of failure.
Finally, my thoughts on the solutions that may fit your needs:
Elliptics. This object storage is not well-known outside of the russian part of the Internet, but it's mature and stable, and performance is perfect. It was developed at Yandex (russian search engine) and a lot of Yandex services (like Disk, Mail, Music, Picture hosting and so on) are built on the top of it. I used it in previous project, this may take some time for your ops to get into it, but it's worth it, if you're OK with GPL license.
Ceph. This is real object storage. It's also open source, but it seems that only Red Hat people know how to deploy and maintain it. So get ready to a vendor lock. Also I heard that it have too complicated settings. Never used in production, so don't know about performance.
Minio. This is S3-compatible object storage, under active development at the moment. Never used it in production, but it seems to be well-designed.
You may also check wiki page with the full list of available solutions.
And the last point: I strongly recommend not to use OpenStack Swift (there are lot of reasons why, but first of all, Python is just not good for these purposes).
One probably-relevant question, whose answer I do not readily see in your post, is this:
How often do users actually "modify" the content?
and:
When and if they do, how painful is it if a particular user is served "stale" content?
Personally (and, "categorically speaking"), I prefer to tackle such problems in two stages: (1) identifying the objects to be stored – e.g. using a database as an index; and (2) actually storing them, this being a task that I wish to delegate to "a true file-system, which after all specializes in such things."
A database (it "offhand" seems to me ...) would be a very good way to handle the logical ("as seen by the user") taxonomy of the things which you wish to store, while a distributed filesystem could handle the physical realities of storing the data and actually getting it to where it needs to go, and your application would be in the perfect position to gloss-over all of those messy filesystem details . . .
When should I make this direct recording at the bank?
What are the situations?
I know I can record the path of the image in the bank.
In addition to the cost being higher as mentioned, one must take into account several factors:
Data Volume: For a low volume of data there may be no problem. On the other hand, for mass storage of data the database is practically unfeasible.
Clustering: One advantage of the database is if your system runs on multiple servers, everyone will have uniform access to the files.
Scalability: If demand for volume or availability increases, can you add more capacity to the system? It is much easier to split files between different servers than to distribute records from one table to more servers.
Flexibility: Backing up, moving files from one server to another, doing some processing on the stored files, all this is easier if the files are in a directory.
There are several strategies for scaling a system in terms of both availability and volume. Basically these strategies consist of distributing them on several different servers and redirecting the user to each of them according to some criteria. The details vary of implementation, such as: data update strategy, redundancy, distribution criteria, etc.
One of the great difficulties in managing files outside BD is that we now have two distinct data sources that need to be always in sync.
From the safety point of view, there is actually little difference. If a hacker can compromise a server, it can read both the files written to disk of your system and the files of the database system. If this question is critical, an alternative is to store the encrypted data.
I also convert my images into byte array and store them in an sql server database but in the long run, I am sure that someone will ask you and tell you that you should only save the (server) path of the image.
The biggest disadvantage of storing as binary I think is
Retrieving images from database is significantly more expensive compared to using the file system
In my system, a user can upload very large files, which I need to store in Couchbase. I don't need such very large objects to persist in memory, but I want them to be always read/written from/to disk. These files are read-only (never modified). The user can upload them, delete them, download them, but never update them. For some technical constraints, my system cannot store those files in the file system, so they have to be stored into the database.
I've done some research and found an article[1] saying that storing large objects in a database is generally a bad idea, especially with Couchbase, but at the same time provides some advice: create a secondary bucket with a low RAM quota, tune up the value/full eviction policy. My concern is the limit of 20Mb mentioned by the author. My files would be much larger than that.
What's the best approach to follow to store large files into Couchbase without having them persist in memory? Is it possible to raise the limit of 20Mb in case? Shall I create a secondary bucket with a very low RAM quota and a full eviction policy?
[1]http://blog.couchbase.com/2016/january/large-objects-in-a-database
Generally, Couchbase engineers recommend that you not store large files in Couchbase. Instead, you can store the files on some file server (like AWS or Azure Blob or something) and instead store the meta-data about the files in Couchbase.
There's a couchbase blog posting that gives a pretty detailed breakdown of how to do what you want to do in Couchbase.
This is Java API specific but the general approach can work with any of the Couchbase SDKs, I'm actually in the midst of doing something pretty similar right now with the node SDK.
I can't speak for what couchbase engineers recommend but they've posted this blog entry detailing how to do it.
For large files, you'll certainly want to split into chunks. Do not attempt to store a big file all in one document. The approach I'm looking at is to chunk the data, and insert it under the file sha1 hash. So file "Foo.docx" would get split into say 4 chunks, which would be "sha1|0", "sha1|1" and so on, where sha1 is the hash of the document. This would also enable a setup where you can store the same file under many different names.
Tradeoffs -- if integration with Amazon S3 is an option for you, you might be better off with that. In general chunking data in a DB like what I describe is going to be more complicated to implement, and much slower, than using something like Amazon S3. But that has to be traded off other requirements, like whether or not you can keep sensitive files in S3, or whether you want to deal with maintaining a filesystem and the associated scaling of that.
So it depends on what your requirements are. If you want speed/performance, don't put your files in Couchbase -- but can you do it? Sure. I've done it myself, and the blog post above describes a separate way to do it.
There are all kinds of interesting extensions you might wish to implement, depending on your needs. For example, if you commonly store many different files with similar content, you might implement a blocking strategy that would allow single-store of many common segments, to save space. Other solutions like S3 will happily store copies of copies of copies of copies, and gleefully charge you huge amounts of money to do so.
EDIT as a follow-up, there's this other Couchbase post talking about why storing in the DB might not be a good idea. Reasonable things to consider - but again it depends on your application-specific requirements. "Use S3" I think would be generally good advice, but won't work for everyone.
MongoDB has an option to do this sort of thing, and it's supported in almost all drivers: GridFS. You could do something like GridFS in Couchbase, which is to make a metadata collection (bucket) and a chunk collection with fixed size blobs. GridFS allows you to change the blob size per file, but all blobs must be the same size. The filesize is stored in the metadata. A typical chunk size is 2048, and are restricted to powers of 2.
You don't need memory cache for files, you can queue up the chunks for download in your app server. You may want to try GridFS on Mongo first, and then see if you can adapt it to Couchbase, but there is always this: https://github.com/couchbaselabs/cbfs
This is the best practice: do not take couchbase database as the main database consider it as sync database because no matter how you chunk data into small pieces it will go above 20MB size which will hit you in long run, so having a strong database like MySQL in a middle will help to save those large data then use couchbase for realtime and sync only.
I'm setting a home server primarily for backup use. I have about 90GB of personal data that must be backed up in the most reliable manner, while still preserving disk space. I want to have full file history so I can go back to any file at any particular date.
Full weekly backups are not an option because of the size of the data. Instead, I'm looking along the lines of an incremental backup solution. However, I'm aware that a single corruption in a set of incremental backups makes the entire series (beyond a point) unrecoverable. Thus simple incremental backups are not an option.
I've researched a number of solutions to the problem. First, I would use reverse-incremental backups so that the latest version of the files would have the least chance of loss (older files are not as important). Second, I want to protect both the increments and backup with some sort of redundancy. Par2 parity data seems perfect for the job. In short, I'm looking for a backup solution with the following requirements:
Reverse incremental (to save on disk space and prioritize the most recent backup)
File history (kind of a broader category including reverse incremental)
Par2 parity data on increments and backup data
Preserve metadata
Efficient with bandwidth (bandwidth saving; no copying the entire directory over for each increment). Most incremental backup solutions should work this way.
This would (I believe) ensure file integrity and relatively small backup sizes. I've looked at a number of backup solutions already but they have a number of problems:
Bacula - Simple normal incremental backups
bup - incremental and implements par2 but isn't reverse incremental and doesn't preserve metadata
duplicity - incremental, compressed, and encrypted but isn't reverse incremental
dar - incremental and par2 is easy to add, but isn't reverse incremental and no file history?
rdiff-backup - almost perfect for what I need but it doesn't have par2 support
So far I think that rdiff-backup seems like the best compromise but it doesn't support par2. I think I can add par2 support to backup increments easily enough since they aren't modified each backup but what about the rest of the files? I could generate par2 files recursively for all files in the backup but this would be slow and inefficient, and I'd have to worry about corruption during a backup and old par2 files. In particular, I couldn't tell the difference between a changed file and a corrupt file, and I don't know how to check for such errors or how they would affect the backup history. Does anyone know of any better solution? Is there a better approach to the issue?
Thanks for reading through my difficulties and for any input you can give me. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
http://www.timedicer.co.uk/index
Uses rdiff-backup as the engine. I've been looking at it, but that requires me to set up a "server" using linux or a virtual machine.
Personally, I use WinRAR to make pseudo-incremental backups (it actually makes a full backup of recent files) run daily by a scheduled task. It is similarly a "push" backup.
It's not a true incremental (or reverse-incremental) but it saves different versions of files based on when it was last updated. I mean, it saves the version for today, yesterday and the previous days, even if the file is identical. You can set the archive bit to save space, but I don't bother anymore as all I backup are small spreadsheets and documents.
RAR has it's own parity or recovery record that you can set in size or percentage. I use 1% (one percent).
It can preserve metadata, I personally skip the high resolution times.
It can be efficient since it compresses the files.
Then all I have to do is send the file to my backup. I have it copied to a different drive and to another computer in the network. No need for a true server, just a share. You can't do this for too many computers though as Windows workstations have a 10 connection limit.
So for my purpose, which may fit yours, backs up my files daily for files that have been updated in the last 7 days. Then I have another scheduled backup that backups files that have been updated in the last 90 days run once a month or every 30 days.
But I use Windows, so if you're actually setting up a Linux server, you might check out the Time Dicer.
Since nobody was able to answer my question, I'll write a few possible solutions I found while researching the topic. In short, I believe the best solution is rdiff-backup to a ZFS filesystem. Here's why:
ZFS checksums all blocks stored and can easily detect errors.
If you have ZFS set to mirror your data, it can recover the errors by copying from the good copy.
This takes up less space than full backups, even though the data is copied twice.
The odds of an error in both the original and mirror is tiny.
Personally I am not using this solution as ZFS is a little tricky to get working on Linux. Btrfs looks promising but hasn't been proven stable from years of use. Instead, I'm going with a cheaper option of simply checking hard drive SMART data. Hard drives should do some error checking/correcting themselves and by monitoring this data I can see if this process is working properly. It's not as good as additional filesystem parity but better than nothing.
A few more notes that might be interesting to people looking into reliable backup development:
par2 seems to be dated and buggy software. zfec seems like a much faster modern alternative. Discussion in bup occurred a while ago: https://groups.google.com/group/bup-list/browse_thread/thread/a61748557087ca07
It's safer to calculate parity data before even writing to disk. i.e. don't write to disk, read it, and then calculate parity data. Do it from ram, and check against the original for additional reliability. This might only be possible with zfec, since par2 is too slow.