this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
162 points (98.8% liked)

Selfhosted

61512 readers
1315 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.

  8. AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I have a 56 TB local Unraid NAS that is parity protected against single drive failure, and while I think a single drive failing and being parity recovered covers data loss 95% of the time, I'm always concerned about two drives failing or a site-/system-wide disaster that takes out the whole NAS.

For other larger local hosters who are smarter and more prepared, what do you do? Do you sync it off site? How do you deal with cost and bandwidth needs if so? What other backup strategies do you use?

(Sorry if this standard scenario has been discussed - searching didn't turn up anything.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

So your whole point is that you shouldn't trust one of the biggest cloud backup companies on the planet when they say that your data is encrypted, with no proof that they're telling lies...........and you're asking me to prove that they're telling the truth?

The onus is on you to prove that they're telling lies, not on me to prove what they say is true.

They say this about computer backup on one of the pages I linked earlier:

Computer Backup Encryption

Data is encrypted on your computer—during transmission and while stored. Block unauthorized users from accessing your data by using a Personal Encryption Key (PEK) or use a 2048-bit public/private key to secure a symmetric AES-128 key. Data is transferred via HTTPS. Enhance your protection with two-factor verification via a TOTP (Time-based One Time Password).

Is that all a lie? Based on what?

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

No.

I'm saying 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% ≠ 100%

For some people that's close enough. For some of us it's not.

Prove otherwise. I dare you. I'm done putting in effort explaining the obvius to you. Your turn.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So being encrypted before transmission and at rest isn't enough simply because someone at backblaze can send the encrypted files out to you on a HDD........

lol

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Nice ragebait.

If you genuinely still think that was my point in its entirety, you are truly obtuse.