OneDrive Sync Mechanics
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Of course, but we have that in the use cases we are discussing, right? If I use OneDrive, as an example, I have a local copy, OD has a copy and OD takes a backup. I have three copies.
I'm talking about moving away from the local copy. Just having it in the cloud.
In a perfect world, I'd have my data local, synced to OneDrive, and also back up my hard drive to BackBlaze. Oh, and OneDrive would be cheaper.
But I am considering possibilities that leave no local copy.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Of course, but we have that in the use cases we are discussing, right? If I use OneDrive, as an example, I have a local copy, OD has a copy and OD takes a backup. I have three copies.
I'm talking about moving away from the local copy. Just having it in the cloud.
In a perfect world, I'd have my data local, synced to OneDrive, and also back up my hard drive to BackBlaze. Oh, and OneDrive would be cheaper.
But I am considering possibilities that leave no local copy.
Ah okay. So if you feel that you need double backups AND you don't have a local copy then yes, these services would normally be a single remote copy and a single remote backup.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
But you wouldn't need them to, right? You have your version system and you have your backups. Under what condition would you need them to pull a file off of backup for you?
Like I said, I am considering a move to the holy grail of all online.
Well, or at least trying to figure out why everyone trusts it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Ah okay. So if you feel that you need double backups AND you don't have a local copy then yes, these services would normally be a single remote copy and a single remote backup.
WTH have we been arguing over? LOL.
-
I'm not saying that one backup, two backups or twenty aren't correct for a given data set. Only that you should either treat the backup from your vendor as a backup or openly admit that you don't feel that you can trust them and move off of them. If you trust them but feel that more backups are needed, that's a different issue.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I'm not saying that one backup, two backups or twenty aren't correct for a given data set. Only that you should either treat the backup from your vendor as a backup or openly admit that you don't feel that you can trust them and move off of them. If you trust them but feel that more backups are needed, that's a different issue.
I don't feel I can get to their "backups". If they mess up, sure. I think they'd be able to reproduce my data. (In what time frame, who knows.)
But I certainly don't feel like they could grab a file for me.
-
@BRRABill said:
Well, or at least trying to figure out why everyone trusts it.
Because most of us don't take many backups of our data. One main copy, one backup. That's normally what we do. And vendors like Amazon are way better at that (reliable, better equipment, etc.) than we are ourselves. Most of us don't feel that we need triplicate of soccer pictures. Nothing wrong with wanting that, but we trust Amazon or MS because, in general, they are significantly, perhaps an order of magnitude, more reliable at have a good, stable initial data store and then having a reliable, tested backup system.
-
@BRRABill said:
I don't feel I can get to their "backups". If they mess up, sure. I think they'd be able to reproduce my data. (In what time frame, who knows.)
But I certainly don't feel like they could grab a file for me.
That's my point about versioning. Tons of modern backup systems don't address file restores and rely on that to be handled "closer to the data." You fix this by introducing versioning earlier in the process.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Because most of us don't take many backups of our data. One main copy, one backup. That's normally what we do. And vendors like Amazon are way better at that (reliable, better equipment, etc.) than we are ourselves. Most of us don't feel that we need triplicate of soccer pictures. Nothing wrong with wanting that, but we trust Amazon or MS because, in general, they are significantly, perhaps an order of magnitude, more reliable at have a good, stable initial data store and then having a reliable, tested backup system.
I'm not questioning them.
I am questioning when I save awesomesoccerphoto1,jpg, and then wife says "oh no this is the right awesomesoccerphoto1.jpg, so I overwrite it. Then says "oh not the other one was right". If I have it local, I go to BackBlaze and I'm saved. I have one copy in OneDrive ... what happens then? I tell you what. Mass anger.
I NEED TRIPLICATES OF MY SOCCER PHOTOS, LOL.
-
If you deal with backups via Digital Ocean, Rackspace, Azure, AWS, Vultr, etc. All that they offer are snapshots. Their backup mechanisms are purely around "repairing the system", not recovering an individual file. I know that some people have concerns around individual file recovery (thankfully those of us on Sharepoint don't have those worries, or those on ownCloud) and I've been lucky that in nearly thirty years of IT I've never needed to recover "a file" that I can remember. I've lost systems, but never had to go digging for a file that was lost (except for situations where people literally got rid of backups on purpose, that was a different issue and happened a LOT.)
So the culture of backups has shifted. We pretty much assume that we are going to image servers and we need to handle versions and protecting files themselves individually at a different layer. Whether you do this with GIT, SP, OC, etc. Lots of ways.
-
I'm really talking specifically about personal stuff. Soccer photos, music, recipes, rants against certain ML members. Things I really want to save for eternity.
-
@BRRABill said:
I am questioning when I save awesomesoccerphoto1,jpg, and then wife says "oh no this is the right awesomesoccerphoto1.jpg, so I overwrite it. Then says "oh not the other one was right". If I have it local, I go to BackBlaze and I'm saved. I have one copy in OneDrive ... what happens then? I tell you what. Mass anger.
Not necessarily, part of the issue here is dealing with pictures as files. As I've said in other conversations (probably with @Dashrender ) that dealing with files themselves is a bit of a computer fail. Not that we don't all do it, but it means that our software isn't delivering on the dream. Instead of having pictures as individual files, why not save them in an image database (I do this online with Flickr, can't overwrite with that) that is then saved to OneDrive? Then you get versioning and control in there before it gets backed up?
Or, simply, OD is not a viable solution for you because, as you pointed out, it lacks the versioning that other solutions, like ownCloud, have.
-
@BRRABill said:
I'm really talking specifically about personal stuff. Soccer photos, music, recipes, rants against certain ML members. Things I really want to save for eternity.
For me, part of this is not using a single service for all things. I use Flickr specifically for images because that's specifically something that they deal with.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
For me, part of this is not using a single service for all things. I use Flickr specifically for images because that's specifically something that they deal with.
You want me to trust MULTIPLE ONLINE SERVICES WITH BACKUP??????????
-
LOL
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill said:
I am questioning when I save awesomesoccerphoto1,jpg, and then wife says "oh no this is the right awesomesoccerphoto1.jpg, so I overwrite it. Then says "oh not the other one was right". If I have it local, I go to BackBlaze and I'm saved. I have one copy in OneDrive ... what happens then? I tell you what. Mass anger.
Not necessarily, part of the issue here is dealing with pictures as files. As I've said in other conversations (probably with @Dashrender ) that dealing with files themselves is a bit of a computer fail. Not that we don't all do it, but it means that our software isn't delivering on the dream. Instead of having pictures as individual files, why not save them in an image database (I do this online with Flickr, can't overwrite with that) that is then saved to OneDrive? Then you get versioning and control in there before it gets backed up?
Or, simply, OD is not a viable solution for you because, as you pointed out, it lacks the versioning that other solutions, like ownCloud, have.
How do you backup flicker with One Drive?
And that conversation wasn't with me, but sounds interesting. save pictures into a DB - hmm..
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill said:
I am questioning when I save awesomesoccerphoto1,jpg, and then wife says "oh no this is the right awesomesoccerphoto1.jpg, so I overwrite it. Then says "oh not the other one was right". If I have it local, I go to BackBlaze and I'm saved. I have one copy in OneDrive ... what happens then? I tell you what. Mass anger.
Not necessarily, part of the issue here is dealing with pictures as files. As I've said in other conversations (probably with @Dashrender ) that dealing with files themselves is a bit of a computer fail. Not that we don't all do it, but it means that our software isn't delivering on the dream. Instead of having pictures as individual files, why not save them in an image database (I do this online with Flickr, can't overwrite with that) that is then saved to OneDrive? Then you get versioning and control in there before it gets backed up?
Or, simply, OD is not a viable solution for you because, as you pointed out, it lacks the versioning that other solutions, like ownCloud, have.
How do you backup flicker with One Drive?
And that conversation wasn't with me, but sounds interesting. save pictures into a DB - hmm..
Here is one example of a tool for that.
-
And another one on CodePlex...
-
@BRRABill said:
You want me to trust MULTIPLE ONLINE SERVICES WITH BACKUP??????????
X for photos
Y for videos
Z for documentsChoose the best tool for each task that suits your needs. Where is the confusion?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
And another one on CodePlex...
But these tools are just downloading the photos, not the DB.
I suppose for backup purposes that's OK, I guess I was thinking you had some way to download the DB for backup.
But then, even if you could download the flickr DB, how would you use it without Flickr's systems?Also, is the expectation then that someone is uploading their photos directly to flickr from their device? If so, why not just upload to 2+ online systems at the same time, and skip the upload/download/upload?
