Your title is about backups but your question seems mostly just about how to set up your storage for backups.
You can go about pooling disks in a few ways but you first need to define what level of protection from failure you want. Before going further though, how much space do you project that you will need for backups?
If you want simple you’ll have to manually decrypt each time it needs doing.
If you want it to be “automatic” then your best bet is something network based. A “simple” would be to just have a script ssh’s somewhere, pulls the decryption key, and then decrypts the disks. There’s plenty of flaws with this though as while a threat actor couldn’t swipe a single encrypted disk they could just log in as root, get your script, and pull the decryption key themselves.
The optimal solution would be to also encrypt the root partition but now you need to do network based decryption at boot which adds further complexity. I’ve previously used Clevis and Tang to do this.
I personally don’tencrypt my server root and only encrypt my data disks. Then ssh in on a reboot or power event and manually decrypt. It is the simplest and most secure option.
The domain doesnt really matter. The mail servers reputation is what really matters. If you aren’t going to run your own mail server then you have nothing to be concerned about.
I prefer restic for my backups. There’s nothing inherently wrong with just making a copy if that is sufficient for you though. Restic will create small point in time snapshots as compared to just a file copy so I’m the event that perhaps you made a mistake and accidentally deleted something from the “live” copy and managed to propagate that to your backup it is a nonissue as you could simply restore from a previous snapshot.
These snapshots can also be compressed and deduplicated making them extremely space efficient.
Just look at the bit rate of what you are streaming and multiply it by 3 then add a little extra for overhead.
I mean I’m not sitting here defending soldered on ram but your unnecessary aggression and sarcasm in your previous responses overshadows the fact that while solder on ram sucks for the upgrade and repair market the underlying tech has very tangible improvements and now we can maintain that improvement and the upgrade and repair functions.
I agree, soldered ram is bad. But I disagree that LPDDR ram is fundamentally bad and this improvement allowing it to be modular while maintaining its improvements is a very good thing.
As far as your complaints of battery life on your thinpad goes, there is much more to battery life than the consumption of the memory but naturally every part plays a role and small improvements in multiple places result in a larger net improvement. I’m assuming you’re running linux which in my experience has always suffered from less than optimal power usage. I’m far from an expert in that particular area but its always been my understanding that it is largely caused by insufficient fireware support.
As a whole this looking at this article in a vacuum i only see good things. A major flaw with lpddr has been address and i will be able to expect these improvements in future systems.
So you believe that the performance improvement and power saving is not worth creating a new standard?
But the article explains that there is a technical reason.
What exactly do you mean by “not mountable”?
The primary reason a private track is private is to make it feasible to maintain a curated community. Many users are not good torrent citizens. Many users are not good netizens in the first place. More than a few will look to actively do harm. Keeping a mostly closed community allows the vetting of users and those who end up breaking the rules are dealt with swiftly.
The extra barrier of entry also helps prevent bad actors from operating on the site. This is of course not a full proof thing but it is obviously much better than a public site.
Additionally running a private tracker and site takes server resources that are not free. Limiting the total number of users is a way of maintaining uptime by staying within your operational limits.
I’m sure there are other benefits for private trackers but these are at least a few.
I am not going to explain why someone on the internet was mean to you. Given the tone of this post I wouldn’t be surprised if it was deserved.
Are you asking about why private trackers are private or are you asking about why a handful of people were mean to you who also happened to use a private tracker?
Edit: typo
Debian for all things.
But I wasn’t even talking about vpns. Just private trackers and how to get into them.
I don’t see how thats relevant.
Depends on which tracker. In general though invites and you get invites by association with relevant groups. Sometimes open registration occurs (though rarely) an other times the trakcer may do interviews.
It mostly comes down to time and patience.
Symlinks likely wouldn’t work for a torrent, because that’s more like a shortcut; The symlink doesn’t actually point to the file, it just points to another filepath.
They are kinda like a shortcut but they are resolved directly by the filesystem and in the fast majority of cases should work perfectly fine if done correctly. In OPs case I’d probably leave the original file intact and create the link at the new desired destination.
You can’t have a hardlink for your C: drive on your D: drive
Thats why I didn’t recommend hardlinks. But I misread OPs post and I see the data will all live on the same drive so I revise my original suggestion and also recommend hardlinks.
But a torrent client likely won’t be able to handle the “oh actually you need to go visit location B” instructions, and will just crash/freeze/refuse to seed.
You’re just pulling that out of your ass.
*all of this is largely under the context of linux but should translate to windows
Symlinks? Pretty sure that exists on windows.
Why not just run a reverse proxy container on the server hosting the rest?
If the total data is 3tb and you want disk failure protection I would take your two 6tb disks and put them in a mirror. With the amount of data you have and the drive sizes at your disposal that makes the most sense. This leaves you with 3tb free for growth. If you wanted an additional backup I would recommend storing it in a different location entirely or pay a cloud provider like Backblaze.
I would do this with ZFS but you can also do this via LVM or just straight md-raid/mdadm. I’m not sure what your issues are with zfs on popos but they should be resolvable as Ubuntu supports zfs fine to my knowledge.
An alternative you could consider is using mergersfs to logically pool indivial filesystems on each of the disks and then use SnapRAID to provider some level of protection. You’ll have to look into that further if interests you as I don’t have to much info in my head related to that solution. Its not as safe as a mirror but its better than nothing.