Advice Request Is 3-2-1 backup strategy still works best for a NAS array of large capacity HDDs?

[HarborFront]

Does the conventional 3-2-1 strategy works here for large capacity drives? A large capacity drive is considered as 8TB and above based on the info on the net.

I have 6x20TB HDDs in a NAS array

So to execute having 3 copies of back up data means I need another 3x NAS arrays for storage, right?

Can forget backing up to cloud or SSD since storage is large.

Using my country's currency for calculation 1x Seagate IronWolf Pro 20TB costs $500. So 6 drives would cost $3000. Need to factor in the NAS too.

For 3 copies of backup data would mean $9000 for drives + 3x backup NAS.

Overall costs would be the primary NAS array + 3x backup NAS arrays = 4x NAS arrays

I can say for smaller capacity drives like those 1 or 2 TB this 3-2-1 strategy works well even for SSDs.

But in my case is it practical for a home user using the 3-2-1 strategy?

If not, then would just a backup NAS array be suffice?

 

[Bot]

The 3-2-1 strategy can be expensive for large capacity drives, as you've calculated. However, it's not necessary to have three separate NAS arrays. You can have two copies on different devices in your home network (like your NAS and a dedicated backup server), and one offsite.

If offsite backup is not possible due to large storage size, consider having at least two local backups on different devices. This would mean your primary NAS and a backup NAS. This isn't as robust as the 3-2-1 strategy, but it's more practical and affordable while still providing a good level of data protection.

Remember, the key is to have your data in different places to prevent loss from any single point of failure.

 

[HarborFront]

The 3-2-1 strategy can be expensive for large capacity drives, as you've calculated. However, it's not necessary to have three separate NAS arrays. You can have two copies on different devices in your home network (like your NAS and a dedicated backup server), and one offsite.

If offsite backup is not possible due to large storage size, consider having at least two local backups on different devices. This would mean your primary NAS and a backup NAS. This isn't as robust as the 3-2-1 strategy, but it's more practical and affordable while still providing a good level of data protection.

Remember, the key is to have your data in different places to prevent loss from any single point of failure.

The point is regardless of the methods of storage it is still large storage be it on another device or server which cost more. Capacity of backup will need to be the same as the primary NAS or more.

Even 2x backup copies also cost a bomb i.e. $6000 + 2x NAS

 

[Bot]

The point is regardless of the methods of storage it is still large storage be it on another device or server which cost more. Capacity of backup will need to be the same as the primary NAS or more.

Even 2x backup copies also cost a bomb i.e. $6000 + 2x NAS

Yes, you're correct. Large capacity backups can be costly. In your case, a more cost-effective strategy might be to have a single backup NAS array. This won't offer as much protection as the 3-2-1 strategy, but it will still safeguard your data against a single point of failure. Additionally, consider using RAID configurations in your NAS for redundancy. This won't replace a backup, but it can add an extra layer of protection.

 

[SpiderWeb]

I think I understood the rule differently. 3 copies on your primary device. 2 copies outside of internal storage (NAS, external drive), 1 copy geographically different (cloud). First three can be as simple as partitioning your internal storage and backup a copy or use System Restore/Time Machine. Next two are your NAS + redundancy storage for self repair. Last one is any cloud storage you like.

 

[HarborFront]

I think I understood the rule differently. 3 copies on your primary device. 2 copies outside of internal storage (NAS, external drive), 1 copy geographically different (cloud). First three can be as simple as partitioning your internal storage and backup a copy or use System Restore/Time Machine. Next two are your NAS + redundancy storage for self repair. Last one is any cloud storage you like.

My understanding is you make 3 copies of the primary data

2 copies of which are kept on different media

The last copy is the backup copy kept in an offsite location

 

[SpiderWeb]

My understanding is you make 3 copies of the primary data

2 copies of which are kept on different media

The last copy is the backup copy kept in an offsite location

Ah I see. I think the definition of different type of media has changed over time. In the past, using DVDs and tapes were viable alternatives. But, sites like Backblaze and Veeam now consider a secondary NAS or cloud storage different media even though they are still hard drives.

I personally evaluated my risk model and decided to go with a blended approach since doing 321 for all data is not feasible to me. I do 321 for the most sensitive data, the rest is stored exclusively on my NAS which is a risk I offset by having a more resilient setup and more reliable drives.