Disaster proof cloud backup

Let's be real, an home server/NAS will most likely not survive something like an earthquake, a fire, a flood, people breaking into your house, etc., so if you truly care about some piece of data the most practical solution is to use a cloud service, possibly one that has been around for some years without major problems.

What interests me is how to prepare your data for (((the cloud))).

Using compressed archives is convenient because it may reduce the size of the upload and it lets you divide your data in smaller chunks, making it easier to upload/dowload, especially if you are using an unstable connection or a web client. Though I have read many times people saying that the encryption of 7z, rar, or other formats is "not enough", nobody has ever provided a proof. Is there truth to that?
If you go with archives, what are the optimal formats and compression parameters? Does it make sense to add redundancy in the compression?

Other often mentioned options are VeraCrypt volumes or GPG, but they don't seem as practical.

A third option would be to use some tool that automatically encrypts the files before they get synchronized (EncFS, CryptSync, Boxcryptor...), anybody ever used them? Are they reliable?

I just use a safety deposit box at my bank.

If it was something SUPER important I'd probably have a copy in another safety deposit box in the next state over.

What the fuck are you storing in such a large volume that also needs to be triple-autistic secure?

I'm legitimately curious.

it would be great to work there and force yourself to walk or run a lot.

>I need to encrypt my anime and porn collection
Lay off the autism juice.

I do everything on Google Drive and have a local backup.

What kind of storage device do you keep in there, and how often do you access it to see if everything is still working?
Also how much does it cost to you? Where I live deposit boxes seem to be pretty expensive.

Google says they're only $15-$25 per year. If that's true I'm going to get one.

I already have the safety deposit box for important documents (birth certificates, passport, etc).

I personally use a solid state drive for what i currently back up, in the past i've used HDD's though.

Cost is going to depend on the bank and size of the box, etc.

I will usually only check the data integrity whenever I am adding files to it. Since it's not my primary backup I will only update it as needed for specific (generally financial information).

So maybe 3 times a year?

It's funny one of the few things I'd upload unencrypted is porn, I like such normie shit anyway

Do they have a room where you can stay for a while with your laptop and ssd to do the synchronization or you have to bring the ssd home and then take it back to the bank?

I bring it home and then take it back. It's a bit of a hassle, but it's the one of the cheaper ways to have a fairly secure backup without having to trust some 3rd party software or tools that go through the internet.

It's not going to stop the NSA from having access, but besides that it's about as secure as it gets for a normie.

>the most practical solution is to use a cloud service,
No user, the best solution is an offsite back up

Get a couple of drives and put the in a nas, then take it to your parents house and leave in hooked itno their network.

>paying jewgle a monthly fee to store data

You would pay for your drives in less than a year.by using your own

>an offsite back up
bingo

but how would I go about creating an offsite data center like that on public property?
meaning if I don't want to/can't use my parents house

the basic limitations would be
>finding some place to securely hide it
>to keep it powered
>to keep it connected to the internet (public wifi?)

I think cloud is more practical because of how easy it is to access it. The offsite backup should be also pretty far away if you want protection against catastrphic events, hence even less convenient.

>>paying jewgle a monthly fee to store data
>You would pay for your drives in less than a year.by using your own
Not a fair comparison, a DIY solution will never achieve the same level of safety that you'd have with multiple jewgle datacenter across the world. The kind of data I was thinking about are the most important files you have, for me is about 30GB so I don't really need to pay if I use mega or a couple of google accounts

except your jewgle solution requires internet access, which means you're fucked in a catastrophic event anyway
if you really insist on giving your most important shit to third parties (really dude?), go for a bank deposit box

here's a solid Sup Forums project:
create a WAN composed of 1 main site and 2 off-sites, the probability of them all being compromised at once is nearly zero (unless they're a walk away from each other), and you have the choice of digital and physical access
bonus points: scalable real-time data replication between all sites and nodes

Get a 2nd nas, offer to set up your non non savvy tech friends home network, give her (or him) a little bit of storage on that nas (on a separate volume + different access rights), sync the nas's, let her (or him) pay for electricity and internet.

I don't care much about being able to access it in a catastrophic situation, I just want it to be safe. With easier access I meant that in normal condition I'm able to upload and secure files easily and without leaving my home.

>if you really insist on giving your most important shit to third parties (really dude?), go for a bank deposit box
Eh that's why 80% of the OP is about how to encrypt the data

Why not have two HDDs that you switch when you get there?

This way all you have to do is add the new files to the drive you have at home, bring it to the bank and take the other one home.
This way you only have to do one trip to the bank, and the only downside is the cost of a new hard drive (of you don't already have a spare one).

Considering I could walk to my bank if I felt like it, it's not really a huge deal to me.

Just physically move your harddrives out of your house lmao.

Where?

Friends or family. Surely you know somebody who you can trust.

Alright Sup Forums, archival is actually a really complex subject, but it boils down to the following two topics:

*Data integrity detection and recovery (making sure the correct data is written to the archival storage medium and making sure the exact same data can be recovered at some point in the future)

*Data redundancy (Making sure the data exists in many different locations and on different kinds of media to mitigate the risk of catastrophic data loss)

For data integrity, you have to make sure you the data stays intact. Bit rot, partial or total corruption of the data due to damaged or degraded storage media, hardware or transfer issues could pose problems in restoring the data. With parity and duplication of the data, one can design a backup scheme that protects the data from any level of corruption. The more protection, the larger the storage requirements.

For data redundancy, the point is both to prevent catastrophic data loss, as in floods, fires, burglary, etc. But another point is to meet the demands for data integrity protection. By archiving the data, splitting the data into chunks, and embedding a recovery record to the archive that is larger than the size of one of the many chunks, and then saving the split archive in multiple places, if one chunk goes missing or becomes corrupt, the same chunk can be read from a different source. And if one chunk is missing for all sources at once, it can be recovered from the recovery record. Read about xor calculations for more information about this kind of magic. By increasing the size of the parity records, more chunks can be missing or corrupted while still being able to recover all the data.

1/2

2/2

Now, you little shits, and I hope you're still reading, the best part about all this is that with archiving you also get error-detecting code in the form of CRC, so upon extraction of the contents of the archive, if there is corruption, you'll be notified. This effectively guards against bit rot and other kinds of silent corruption that would otherwise go unnoticed. And as a bonus, the content can be encrypted as well, a neat feature for cloud store or storage on media delivered to a third party for safe keeping.

>and on different kinds of media to mitigate the risk of catastrophic data loss)
I never understood this part. What's wrong with just using the same kind of media? As long as it's in a different location, it won't be hit by the same catastrophic events.

Scenario 1:

Let's say you store the data on HDDs. You keep one in your drawer in your house, one in your friends house, and one in a deposit box in another city.

Then your main drive fails. No sweat, you buy a new drives, and when it arrives you take your backup disk out of your drawer and copy the contents to your new drive. But hey, we're talking catastrophic failure here. So as you're taking the drive out of the drawer, you drop it and it hits the floor. Drive is dead. Oh well, you call your friend and ask him to bring the drive you have at his place. But 5 minutes later he calls you, rather upset: he dropped the drive as he was putting it into the car. With shaky hands you grab the last drive from the safety deposit box and you bring it home. All is well, you safely got it home without dropping it. But OH SHIT, your dog just decided to jump onto the computer and topple it over, drive dead! Fate just handed it to you today. If only you had a copy on some kind of media that doesn't break when dropped. Oh well.

Scenario 2:

Your drives just crapped out. You put the backup drive into your computer, and it seems to copy just fine, but half way through it dies too. The second backup drive seems to work, but after copying all the data you realized it's all corrupted. You put in the last drive, and it dies too. Turns out there was a problem with the computer which corrupts all S-ATA drives connected to it. If only you had a copy on a different medium.

Yes, HDDs can break in various ways. As can other methods. There's absolutely no reason to believe that there's a higher chance for the same thing to happen to completely different drives (or any of the same medium), than having different things to happen to the different mediums. A hard drive slipping out of your hand 2 times has basically the same chance as one hard drive falling and one tape getting caught in a fire.

Scenario 3:

"I backup all my shit to DVDs, it's much more robust than HDDs".

15 years later: "I'll go grab my old DVDs, time to transfer all my stuff to my new 35TB SSD. First DVD: "Can't Read From the Source File or Disk"
Second DVD: "Can't Read From the Source File or Disk"
Third DVD: Works OK.
Fourth DVD: "Can't Read From the Source File or Disk"

Turns out heat and moisture separated the data layer from the substrate. If only I had stored the data on more than one medium.

That would've been avoided by storing in different places anyway.

Because different storage media are susceptible to different environmental stresses, catastrophic losses can be mitigated by storing on different types of media.

If you store the data in the cloud for instance, the risk of data loss due to dropping drives or tape or optical media decaying because of heat and moisture is close to zero. But if you store the data on DVDs, the risk of the data being compromised from a data center breach or fire is close to zero.

And all of those are mitigated by storing multiple in different locations.

>That would've been avoided by storing in different places anyway.

Not if you live in a country or state with a hot and humid climate. Storage conditions in your house might not differ much from those at your friends house for instance. And that's if you use media that because because of heat and moisture.

If you store it on HDDs, the risk of dropping the drives increase when you store them in different places and the further apart they are, the bigger the chance of them getting destroyed during transit.

that decays* because of heat and moisture

I have a local NAS using ZFS1.
For offsite, I push nightly encrypted snapshot deltas, which is more wasteful of remote storage than rsync etc. but renders me nearly immune to ransomware and means I don't need to have any trust whatsoever in the remote system. Could go to hourly deltas if I wanted closer approximation of true love offsite backup.

Fuck, meant RAIDZ(1).
But most people here seem to get the idea that only offsite makes sense.

It's better than noting, but off site cold storage should be added to your setup.

Cloud backup is fine for small amounts of data and if you encrypt it in a container format of some kind (rar/zip/7z/true crypt). But for large amount or if your wanting to backup everything then cloud would be a very time consuming/expensive thing not only to do the backup but if it came down to it, to do the restore process. A primary backup + a portable one via USB key or USB External drive or really just a another copy of the data on hdds that you store in anti static bags in a box is really all you need. Long as the box with the drives don't get kicked/wet/dropped you'll be fine.

>Long as the box with the drives don't get kicked/wet/dropped you'll be fine.

And as long as you're fine with the thought of all your data being gone if it's kicked/wet/dropped, then that's all you need.

just RAID1 or RAID10 then you faggot

For encryption I think Cloudberry supports it.

Closed source paid product though so have fun. On the bright side it is a business / server product.