| EC2 Snapshots or Kerio Backups? [message #128092] |
Mon, 22 February 2016 23:30  |
mayall
Messages: 97
Registered: October 2006
|
|
|
|
I currently run Kerio Connect on a Linux EC2 instance:
- The 180GB EC2 instance contains Kerio Connect and the message store.
- The EC2 instance is backed up via live snapshots.
- A 200GB EBS volume stores a week of Kerio Connect backups.
- The Kerio Connect backups are mirrored to S3 which is archived to Glacier storage.
I think the above backups are overly conservative and probably contribute 30% to the cost of running the server.
Obviously the Kerio Backups are a good way to go. I have good experience rebuilding servers from such backups. But could I instead rely on snapshots?
Are live snapshots of a live EBS volume a safe backup from which to restore?
I'm guessing the easy answer is no since they are backups of a live server/volume, but the incremental aspect of them also probably means that they are very quick and probably also pretty safe. If I knew they are reasonably safe (not sure how to determine that), I'd probably move the message store to another EBS volume and use snapshots on that volume.
|
|
|
|
| Re: EC2 Snapshots or Kerio Backups? [message #128205 is a reply to message #128092] |
Sat, 27 February 2016 20:31  |
Maerad
Messages: 275
Registered: August 2013
|
|
|
|
Will Mayall wrote on Mon, 22 February 2016 23:30I currently run Kerio Connect on a Linux EC2 instance:
- The 180GB EC2 instance contains Kerio Connect and the message store.
- The EC2 instance is backed up via live snapshots.
- A 200GB EBS volume stores a week of Kerio Connect backups.
- The Kerio Connect backups are mirrored to S3 which is archived to Glacier storage.
I think the above backups are overly conservative and probably contribute 30% to the cost of running the server.
Obviously the Kerio Backups are a good way to go. I have good experience rebuilding servers from such backups. But could I instead rely on snapshots?
Are live snapshots of a live EBS volume a safe backup from which to restore?
I'm guessing the easy answer is no since they are backups of a live server/volume, but the incremental aspect of them also probably means that they are very quick and probably also pretty safe. If I knew they are reasonably safe (not sure how to determine that), I'd probably move the message store to another EBS volume and use snapshots on that volume.
I would suggest to do both, even if it means additional costs. The kerio backups can restore a mail folder itself for one user, something a snapshot never can. Also if something goes wrong with the snapshot (there are full snapshots and incremental, already had some fun with those), you wouldn't have a backup. Not to mention you can restore a way longer back in time with the kerio backup.
Mail for me is something I consider in a business as critical system. So at least I have two different backups. In our company I have kerio backup to a local nas, altero hyperv backup to the local nas, altero backup to our branch server and a real time hyperv replica of the server to another local server on the other side of the building if anything should go wrong.
Seems much, but it saved our ass more then one time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: EC2 Snapshots or Kerio Backups? [message #128207 is a reply to message #128205] |
Sat, 27 February 2016 23:53 |
mayall
Messages: 97
Registered: October 2006
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your feedback. I'd forgot to consider the ability to recover a single mailbox. That's a very strong argument in favor of the Kerio backups.
I suspect I'll continue to run both snapshots and backups and fine-tune over time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
