The article is a bit convoluted. The parts about the "if remote target" is unnecessarily repeated. The most recommended backup strategy is 3-2-1, regardless of what you want to backup. You could have explained that in the beginning and then just compared the different backup strategies -- cp, sqlite backup api, dumps -- and their advantages and disadvantages.
> How would that happen in practice with SQLite? perhaps this?
It would happen as with any other file. The 3-2-1 rule don't care about file contents.
You're right about your number 1. A backup storage close to the source is in important for backup speed and fast recovery.
The different storage device/media comes from the era when the primary medium was tape. Not so important any longer, if you ask me personally.
The S3 would qualify as remote location, but ONLY if it's stored as immutable. And no fake immutability that can be overwritten. True immutability that you cannot delete with admin privileges. The reason is that remote should be air-gapped so an attacker truly can't mess with the backups.
The mounted network share is useless. Don't do that.
The article is a bit convoluted. The parts about the "if remote target" is unnecessarily repeated. The most recommended backup strategy is 3-2-1, regardless of what you want to backup. You could have explained that in the beginning and then just compared the different backup strategies -- cp, sqlite backup api, dumps -- and their advantages and disadvantages.
I find the summary at the end kind of concise and objective.
As for 3-2-1, this is what the internet tells me, for posterity:
> 3-2-1 backup strategy involves keeping three copies of your data in two different storage types, with one copy stored off-site:
> 3 copies: Keep three copies of your data
> 2 storage types: Store the data on two different storage devices or media
> 1 copy off-site: Store one copy of your data in a remote location"
How would that happen in practice with SQLite? perhaps this?
- 1 copy close to the original database
- 1 copy on the same server but in a network mount
- 1 copy on S3
> How would that happen in practice with SQLite? perhaps this?
It would happen as with any other file. The 3-2-1 rule don't care about file contents.
You're right about your number 1. A backup storage close to the source is in important for backup speed and fast recovery.
The different storage device/media comes from the era when the primary medium was tape. Not so important any longer, if you ask me personally.
The S3 would qualify as remote location, but ONLY if it's stored as immutable. And no fake immutability that can be overwritten. True immutability that you cannot delete with admin privileges. The reason is that remote should be air-gapped so an attacker truly can't mess with the backups.
The mounted network share is useless. Don't do that.