On 2023-04-28 03:18, Paul wrote:
> On 4/27/2023 5:18 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2023-04-27 21:48, Paul wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2023 8:36 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2023-04-26 01:30, knuttle wrote:
>>>>> On 4/25/2023 6:29 PM, Sjouke Burry wrote:
>>>>>> On 26.04.23 0:13, knuttle wrote:
>>>>>>> I have been asked to assist in getting two computers on the
>>>>>>> Church LAN
>>>>>>> backed up.   There  are only two computers on the LAN.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know I could do it as on my  home LAN; sync the laptop to the
>>>>>>> desktop,
>>>>>>> and backup the desktop to a direct connected external drive.  This
>>>>>>> solution may not work as the minister may have private
>>>>>>> information he
>>>>>>> would not want on the Office Administrators computer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ideal solution would be to give the user access to the external
>>>>>>> drive through a inexpensive device like the old print server that
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> connected to an Ethernet port on the LAN router.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can some one recommend a solution where the external drive could be
>>>>>>> attached to the LAN so the the two user could back up their
>>>>>>> computers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ideally thy would access the drive would be through a Drive
>>>>>>> letter in Windows Explorer.  It should be a simple,
>>>>>>> inexpensive solution.   I Know there LAN connected Raid type
>>>>>>> of devices, but want to keep it as simple as possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Image backup each comp to  a separate USB drive
>>>>>> and leave those at the desk of the preacher and the administrator.
>>>>>> You might even use two USB drives for each as added safety.
>>>>>> Non of this forces you to examine (secret?) data.
>>>>> I am afraid this is beyond the technical abilities of the Office
>>>>> Administrator.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am looking for some thing that will protect their data
>>>>> automatically, the OS can always be reinstalled from MS>
>>>>
>>>> Caveat: a ransom attack could pervert both computers and the online
>>>> backups.
>>>>
>>> The best part about topics like this, is not knowing how they work.
>>>
>>> I share your skepticism about backups as a cure for ransomware
>>> (because of the delay-type ransomware, which infects backups
>>> and waits before springing an attack), but this does not stop companies
>>> from pretending they are "bulletproof".
>>>
>>> https://www.macrium.com/ransomware-protection
>>
>> I was also thinking that if the NAS server is accessible as windows
>> shared folder, any virus or trojan can directly infect that share.
>>
>> I do not have a solution for that. If I had to do it, I would try to
>> avoid shares and investigate rsync or some other protocol over ssh.
>>
>
> Over the months, the only solution I could think of,
> was a "tape drive emulator" where "rewind" is missing :-)

I doubt a virus/trojan can access a tape at all, it is not a share.
Unless it is targeted at those sites.

You can use Linux on the backup storage server, but you still need to
connect to it somehow.

You could have a Windows server doing the backups in a normal Windows
manner, then have the compressed archives sent over to the Linux server
across some "unidirectional" protocol. Some sftp, better if the script
runs on the Linux side.

That is no longer a simple setup.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2023-04-28 03:33, Paul wrote:
> On 4/27/2023 5:21 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2023-04-27 21:57, Paul wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2023 11:24 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> I have been asked to assist in getting two computers on the Church LAN
>>>>> backed up.   There  are only two computers on the LAN.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know I could do it as on my  home LAN; sync the laptop to the
>>>>> desktop,
>>>>> and backup the desktop to a direct connected external drive.  This
>>>>> solution may not work as the minister may have private information he
>>>>> would not want on the Office Administrators computer.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ideal solution would be to give the user access to the external
>>>>> drive through a inexpensive device like the old print server that you
>>>>> connected to an Ethernet port on the LAN router.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can some one recommend a solution where the external drive could be
>>>>> attached to the LAN so the the two user could back up their computers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ideally thy would access the drive would be through a Drive letter in
>>>>> Windows Explorer.  It should be a simple, inexpensive solution.   I
>>>>> Know
>>>>> there LAN connected Raid type of devices, but want to keep it as
>>>>> simple
>>>>> as possible.
>>>>
>>>>    As has been mentioned, there's the issue of on-site *and* off-site
>>>> backup and the issue of (some) protection against ransomware, so
>>>> "simple" is out of the question.
>>>>
>>>>    Also, who is going to do the ongoing management of this stuff,
>>>> you or
>>>> they?
>>>>
>>>>    That said, for our two-computer home network, I use a NAS (for
>>>> ease of
>>>> *use*, *not* for ease of *setup*) *and* portable USB HDDs for offsite
>>>> storage and (some) protection against ransomware. But I do the ongoing
>>>> management (a NAS is basically a computer system, so it needs
>>>> management).
>>>>
>>>
>>> The hope is, the NAS will spin down the drives, using power
>>> management commands over SATA, during periods of inactivity.
>>> Whether the previous storage lawsuit allows this, I do not know.
>>> Power management was ruined by the settlement of that lawsuit.
>>
>> Did I read lawsuit?  :-o
>>
>> What was that?
>
> Someone had a patent on power management,
> and sued Seagate. After that date, features were
> removed from drives (rather than pay a licensing fee
> per drive sold).
>
> With AAM, you could turn down the seek time (after a fashion),
> and the drive would make less noise. Seek uses a kind of
> elevator algorithm, where deceleration is "critically damped"
> and there is no overshoot. That's what I like about hard
> drive engineering, is "nothing is approximate, everything is perfect" :-)
> They could have made seek more aggressive, burned more power,
> but then the settling time for the overshoot, kills the fun.

OOooOOooh.

> https://forum.hddguru.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4555
>
>    "The problem is that Seagate no longer supports AAM
>     (due to lawsuit with Convolve and MIT over some patent rights)"
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/technology/companies/29seagate.html
>
> Now, while that was for AAM, there seemed to be some effect on
> other functions. We'd need someone like Franc Zakbar to give us
> a rundown (a former hard drive guy who used to hang out in USENET).
> I don't know all the details, except to say every time I look
> at HDTune "features" tab, hard drives are always "a mess"
> when it comes to tick boxes. No two alike. As a result, if
> someone asks me "what features can I expect", I've got no
> ability at all to predict. There's one byte value you
> can send I think, that makes the drive save more and more
> power, but then, it doesn't work. And this is not an accident.
> And it's related to one of the lawsuits. The other lawsuits
> were over things like the "Gigabyte/Gibibyte definition".

I remember that one. One or several, nevermind.

> You can save power by reducing spin from 7200RPM to 5600RPM,
> then the next level would be to park the heads, and the
> level after that is zero RPM. All these features may have
> worked at one time.

They could have continuously adjustable speed, depending on the workload...

Long ago I said: why not two or more separate mobile heads? Well, now
they exist.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> On 4/26/2023 11:24 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
[...]

> > As has been mentioned, there's the issue of on-site *and* off-site
> > backup and the issue of (some) protection against ransomware, so
> > "simple" is out of the question.
> >
> > Also, who is going to do the ongoing management of this stuff, you or
> > they?
> >
> > That said, for our two-computer home network, I use a NAS (for ease of
> > *use*, *not* for ease of *setup*) *and* portable USB HDDs for offsite
> > storage and (some) protection against ransomware. But I do the ongoing
> > management (a NAS is basically a computer system, so it needs
> > management).
>
> The hope is, the NAS will spin down the drives, using power
> management commands over SATA, during periods of inactivity.
> Whether the previous storage lawsuit allows this, I do not know.
> Power management was ruined by the settlement of that lawsuit.

Yes, my Synology NAS has 'HDD Hibernation' ("The internal hard disk(s)
and the external SATA disk will hibernate after being inactive for the
configured time period."), but I do not see what protection that offers,
because the NAS+disk(s) will wake up again when its Network Shares are
accessed from one of the two computers.

Or did you have some other point in mind (than protection (against
ransomware))?

[...]

On 4/28/2023 1:33 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>> On 4/26/2023 11:24 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> [...]
>
>>> As has been mentioned, there's the issue of on-site *and* off-site
>>> backup and the issue of (some) protection against ransomware, so
>>> "simple" is out of the question.
>>>
>>> Also, who is going to do the ongoing management of this stuff, you or
>>> they?
>>>
>>> That said, for our two-computer home network, I use a NAS (for ease of
>>> *use*, *not* for ease of *setup*) *and* portable USB HDDs for offsite
>>> storage and (some) protection against ransomware. But I do the ongoing
>>> management (a NAS is basically a computer system, so it needs
>>> management).
>>
>> The hope is, the NAS will spin down the drives, using power
>> management commands over SATA, during periods of inactivity.
>> Whether the previous storage lawsuit allows this, I do not know.
>> Power management was ruined by the settlement of that lawsuit.
>
> Yes, my Synology NAS has 'HDD Hibernation' ("The internal hard disk(s)
> and the external SATA disk will hibernate after being inactive for the
> configured time period."), but I do not see what protection that offers,
> because the NAS+disk(s) will wake up again when its Network Shares are
> accessed from one of the two computers.
>
> Or did you have some other point in mind (than protection (against
> ransomware))?
>
> [...]
>

You can reduce wear on the drives, and save 12W of electricity,
if spinning down a pair of disks. If you had a WD Blue or a
DiamondMax SKU of drive, something not intended for continuous
spinning, then putting the drives away may make them last
longer. You still have a limit of 300,000 or 600,000
head load/unloads. The ramp is made of plastic for all
drives as far as I know. the heads slide up the ramp.

The heads will endure shock better (300G), if the
heads are unloaded and sitting on the ramp.

No, it has nothing to do with ransomware. Just attempting
to extend the life of the drives, or reduce the appearance
of poor power economics. The chipset in the NAS, still
uses electricity, so there's still a tiny effect on
the power bill.

Paul

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
[...]

> You can reduce wear on the drives, and save 12W of electricity,
> if spinning down a pair of disks. If you had a WD Blue or a
> DiamondMax SKU of drive, something not intended for continuous
> spinning, then putting the drives away may make them last
> longer. You still have a limit of 300,000 or 600,000
> head load/unloads. The ramp is made of plastic for all
> drives as far as I know. the heads slide up the ramp.
>
> The heads will endure shock better (300G), if the
> heads are unloaded and sitting on the ramp.
>
> No, it has nothing to do with ransomware. Just attempting
> to extend the life of the drives, or reduce the appearance
> of poor power economics. The chipset in the NAS, still
> uses electricity, so there's still a tiny effect on
> the power bill.

OK, got you. FWIW, my Synology NAS has a WD Red drive, but I still
spin it down after 20 minutes of inactivity, because - like in the
scenario of the OP - it's mainly used for backup, which occurs only a
few times per day.

On 29 Apr 2023 18:02:16 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

> OK, got you. FWIW, my Synology NAS has a WD Red drive, but I still
>spin it down after 20 minutes of inactivity, because - like in the
>scenario of the OP - it's mainly used for backup, which occurs only a
>few times per day.

Can I ask why you use a NAS for backup, rather than just a simple,
much less expensive, external drive, as I do? What are the advantages
of what you do?

Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2023 18:02:16 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > OK, got you. FWIW, my Synology NAS has a WD Red drive, but I still
> >spin it down after 20 minutes of inactivity, because - like in the
> >scenario of the OP - it's mainly used for backup, which occurs only a
> >few times per day.
>
> Can I ask why you use a NAS for backup, rather than just a simple,
> much less expensive, external drive, as I do? What are the advantages
> of what you do?

As you probably remember, we (SWMBO and I) use laptops, so having
'loose' drives 'hanging' from the laptop is more akward than for a
desktop (where it could be in the desktop case or stationary near it).

The connection to the NAS is via Wi-Fi, so no wires.

As to "much less expensive", that's a common 'misconception'.

For example, at the time (September 2017, so (disk) prices of *that*
time!) the NAS was 89 Euro (currently the US$ and the Euro are about
equal), so not all that much money. The 4TB WD Red drive for in the NAS
was 149 Euro. So for 238 Euro, I have a NAS with 4TB storage (again: in
*Sep 2017*). (And European prices tend to be higher than US prices.)

Because it's a NAS, it has many other functions, too many to
summarize. The extra functions I mainly use is as a Media Server for
photos, music and video to stream to the TV or/and sound system.

And, as mentioned, I *also* have portable external USB drives, which I
rotate between onsite and offsite.

On 29 Apr 2023 19:09:01 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>> On 29 Apr 2023 18:02:16 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > OK, got you. FWIW, my Synology NAS has a WD Red drive, but I still
>> >spin it down after 20 minutes of inactivity, because - like in the
>> >scenario of the OP - it's mainly used for backup, which occurs only a
>> >few times per day.
>>
>> Can I ask why you use a NAS for backup, rather than just a simple,
>> much less expensive, external drive, as I do? What are the advantages
>> of what you do?
>
> As you probably remember, we (SWMBO and I) use laptops, so having
>'loose' drives 'hanging' from the laptop is more akward than for a
>desktop (where it could be in the desktop case or stationary near it).
>
> The connection to the NAS is via Wi-Fi, so no wires.
>
> As to "much less expensive", that's a common 'misconception'.
>
> For example, at the time (September 2017, so (disk) prices of *that*
>time!) the NAS was 89 Euro (currently the US$ and the Euro are about
>equal), so not all that much money. The 4TB WD Red drive for in the NAS
>was 149 Euro. So for 238 Euro, I have a NAS with 4TB storage (again: in
>*Sep 2017*). (And European prices tend to be higher than US prices.)
>
> Because it's a NAS, it has many other functions, too many to
>summarize. The extra functions I mainly use is as a Media Server for
>photos, music and video to stream to the TV or/and sound system.
>
> And, as mentioned, I *also* have portable external USB drives, which I
>rotate between onsite and offsite.

OK, thanks for the info.

Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>> On 29 Apr 2023 18:02:16 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, got you. FWIW, my Synology NAS has a WD Red drive, but I still
>>> spin it down after 20 minutes of inactivity, because - like in the
>>> scenario of the OP - it's mainly used for backup, which occurs only a
>>> few times per day.
>>
>> Can I ask why you use a NAS for backup, rather than just a simple,
>> much less expensive, external drive, as I do? What are the advantages
>> of what you do?
>
> As you probably remember, we (SWMBO and I) use laptops, so having
> 'loose' drives 'hanging' from the laptop is more akward than for a
> desktop (where it could be in the desktop case or stationary near it).
>
> The connection to the NAS is via Wi-Fi, so no wires.
>
> As to "much less expensive", that's a common 'misconception'.
>
> For example, at the time (September 2017, so (disk) prices of *that*
> time!) the NAS was 89 Euro (currently the US$ and the Euro are about
> equal), so not all that much money. The 4TB WD Red drive for in the NAS
> was 149 Euro. So for 238 Euro, I have a NAS with 4TB storage (again: in
> *Sep 2017*). (And European prices tend to be higher than US prices.)
>
> Because it's a NAS, it has many other functions, too many to
> summarize. The extra functions I mainly use is as a Media Server for
> photos, music and video to stream to the TV or/and sound system.
>
> And, as mentioned, I *also* have portable external USB drives, which I
> rotate between onsite and offsite.
>

All good use and purpose for the NAS with the WD Red.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ