{"id":1096,"date":"2009-09-30T08:06:52","date_gmt":"2009-09-29T22:06:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nsrd.wordpress.com\/?p=1096"},"modified":"2018-12-12T15:35:27","modified_gmt":"2018-12-12T05:35:27","slug":"copies-and-backups","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/2009\/09\/30\/copies-and-backups\/","title":{"rendered":"Is a &#8220;copy&#8221; a &#8220;backup&#8221;?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>There&#8217;s been of discussions on <a title=\"Copies and Backups Revisited\" href=\"http:\/\/thebackupblog.typepad.com\/thebackupblog\/2009\/09\/copiesandbackups.html\" target=\"_blank\">various<\/a> <a title=\"Are point in time copies backups?\" href=\"http:\/\/storagezilla.typepad.com\/storagezilla\/2009\/09\/are-point-in-time-copies-backups.html\" target=\"_blank\">storage<\/a> <a title=\"Is a copy a backup?\" href=\"http:\/\/thebackupblog.typepad.com\/thebackupblog\/2009\/04\/is-a-copy-a-backup.html\" target=\"_blank\">blogs<\/a> both previously, and again now on whether a copy (e.g., a tarball, or a snapshot, etc.) is a backup. There have been arguments on both sides of the fence, and I&#8217;m going to equally contribute to those arguments now.<\/p>\n<p>You see, a copy <em>is<\/em> a backup, and <em>it&#8217;s not<\/em> a backup.<\/p>\n<p>It&#8217;s almost like <a title=\"Schr\u00f6dinger's Cat\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Schr\u00f6dinger's_cat\" target=\"_blank\">Schr\u00f6dinger&#8217;s Cat<\/a> &#8211; it may be a backup, or it may not be a backup, and you won&#8217;t know for sure until you look more closely at it.<\/p>\n<p>In my book, I set out early in the process to define <em>a backup<\/em>, and define it as follows:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>A backup is a copy of any data that can be used to restore the data as\/when required to its original form. That is, a backup is a valid copy of data, files, applications or operating systems that can be used for the purposes of recovery.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>So it would seem then that I come down fairly heavily in favour of the notion that a copy is a backup. Well, yes \u2013 and no.<\/p>\n<p>In the broadest sense of the term, a random copy of data such as a tarball, an rsync, a zip file, a read-only snapshot <em>is<\/em> indeed a &#8220;backup&#8221;, as it can be used, in a single instance, for the purposes of recovery. However, so too could be a binary print-out\/dump of the exact state of every bit on a LUN. Few would argue though that such an arduous and manual re-entry process would really be recoverable, even though in theory it is.<\/p>\n<p>The reason that it&#8217;s not really recoverable is we&#8217;re all aware of the time frames required for recovery \u2013 recoveries must be completed in a timeframe that is useful to the business (or the end user) who needs the data back. Without that, we don&#8217;t really have a backup at all \u2013 just a random copy of the data.<\/p>\n<p>If we look past the broad term &#8220;backup&#8221; though, and actually evaluate the term <em>backup system<\/em>, then I would suggest that a single &#8220;backup&#8221;, unless it&#8217;s an instantiation of protection from the <em>backup system<\/em>, is not a backup at all, but instead is just a random (or pseudo-random) copy.<\/p>\n<p>To me this boils down to the need to work with the notion of <a title=\"ILP\" href=\"http:\/\/bit.ly\/bo1E4\" target=\"_blank\">Information Lifecycle Protection<\/a>. As you may recall, in a previous blog entry I suggested that there&#8217;s a need to break off data protection activities from ILM and define a new process that revolves around keeping data available in order to be managed by ILM. It may seem a small distinction, but it&#8217;s one which helps in these sorts of discussions. At the time I suggested that conceptually, ILP may be represented as follows:<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_1097\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-1097\" style=\"width: 481px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-1097\" title=\"Components of ILP\" src=\"http:\/\/nsrd.files.wordpress.com\/2009\/09\/ilp1.jpg\" alt=\"Components of ILP\" width=\"481\" height=\"558\"><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-1097\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Components of ILP<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Under this definition, we can cease to worry about whether a copy is a backup, because clearly, a copy will be part of an overall ILP <em>strategy<\/em>. It&#8217;s still data protection, but it doesn&#8217;t have to be <em>backup<\/em> in order to be data protection.<\/p>\n<p>My personal opinion is that a single, isolated copy is technically a backup, but is logically not a backup. &#8220;Technically is&#8221; because it can be used to restore data. &#8220;Logically not&#8221; because it&#8217;s not in itself a guarantee of a correctly designed backup <em>system<\/em>. I.e., unless we can say that the <em>copy came from the backup system<\/em>, we can&#8217;t be guaranteed it&#8217;s a <em>backup.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>One last quote from my book \u2013 this time from the back page<em>:<\/em><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>A well-designed backup system comes about only when several key factors coalesce: business involvement, IT acceptance, best practice designs, enterprise software and reliable hardware.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>So the answer I guess to &#8220;is a copy a backup&#8221; is another question \u2013 &#8220;did the copy from a backup system?&#8221; If the answer to <em>that<\/em> question is yes, then the answer to the original question is the same. If the answer is no, we can&#8217;t reliably answer &#8220;yes&#8221; to the original question.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>There&#8217;s been of discussions on various storage blogs both previously, and again now on whether a copy (e.g., a tarball,&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[5],"tags":[138,257],"class_list":["post-1096","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-backup-theory","tag-backup","tag-copy"],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pKpIN-hG","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1096","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1096"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1096\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7608,"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1096\/revisions\/7608"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1096"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1096"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1096"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}