this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2026
594 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
78543 readers
3383 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
On the other hand, a lot of people are learning how important a tested backup strategy is.
...and don't forget re-testing your backups regularily. I had a really good backup strategy on my Loonix machine. Automatic (or it won't be done), tested, fool proof. When I somehow crashed a somewhat complex encrypted LVM array while swapping HDDs against SSDs, I had to recover from backup. Unfortunately I had become a better fool than I was when I set up backup4l. I had changed the compression algo, made a tiny mistate in the config and failed to realize that for six months I had been storing empty backups every day. Outch.
Notifications will go a long way toward helping with that. Check all assumptions, check all exit codes, notify and stop if anything is amiss. I also have my backup script notify on success, with the time it took to back up and the size and delta size (versus the previous backup) of the resulting backup. 99% of errors get caught by the checks and I get a failure notification. But just in case something silently goes wrong, the size of the backup (too big or too small) is another obvious indicator that something went wrong.
I know. I just had become lazy enough to take the daily notification's subject line ("backup4l has run successfully") as evidence that everything was OK. If I had looked inside the bloody mail I'd have notices that the backup's size was 0B all the time because my self-rolled XZ-compression script failed to add data to the archives it "successfully" created. That's what I meant with "re-testing" - I should better have written "re-validate". My unforgiveable fault was not to look directly at the generated archives after changing the compression from bz2 to xz. Which was pretty pointless anyway as it turned out.