OneDrive Sync Mechanics
-
@BRRABill said:
Downside?
a-local data might get corrupted with a Cryto-type variantWhich would propagate to the online and encrypt that too. If you want protection from that, you need a decoupled backup with file level restores. You either have to do that before you sync (versioning locally) or do it with the backup mechanism remotely (backup versioning.)
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill said:
Downside?
a-local data might get corrupted with a Cryto-type variantWhich would propagate to the online and encrypt that too. If you want protection from that, you need a decoupled backup with file level restores. You either have to do that before you sync (versioning locally) or do it with the backup mechanism remotely (backup versioning.)
I was just about to say this
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Basically, yes. Not everything. Like if you don't trust them with backups you might still trust them with video games. But it's a very basic mistrust when you think that they might be scamming you on backups. If you can't trust them when they say that they will take backups, where would you trust them?
Again, this has nothing to do with trusting Microsoft.
Are we really sure that Microsoft would even do a full restore for you if something goes wrong? Why do you feel they will do that. Is it documented somewhere?
I'd like file level, but would take a full restore if something really got wonky.
-
@BRRABill said:
Again, this has nothing to do with trusting Microsoft.
Are we really sure that Microsoft would even do a full restore for you if something goes wrong?
So at first you say that it has nothing to do with MS, but then you question if they would intentionally refuse to restore if they lose your data?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Which would propagate to the online and encrypt that too. If you want protection from that, you need a decoupled backup with file level restores. You either have to do that before you sync (versioning locally) or do it with the backup mechanism remotely (backup versioning.)
Right ... totally understood.
I also understand the risk/reward of having that data local.
Which was my CrashPlan/BackBlaze option above needs to be implemented.
-
@BRRABill said:
I'd like file level, but would take a full restore if something really got wonky.
They do a full restore IF THE SERVICE FAILS. If YOU fail, they will not restore. You are thinking of this as a restore for you, it is not. They guarantee the service. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. No ambiguity.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
If YOU fail, they will not restore. You are thinking of this as a restore for you, it is not.
Correct.
Simply stated I am 99.99999% sure I will mess something up, and not them.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
If YOU fail, they will not restore. You are thinking of this as a restore for you, it is not.
Correct.
Simply stated I am 99.99999% sure I will mess something up, and not them.
And in that case, if you are trying to use a sync system as a backup mechanism then you must handle the decoupling and versioning on your end before it syncs, not after.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
And in that case, if you are trying to use a sync system as a backup mechanism then you must handle the decoupling and versioning on your end before it syncs, not after.
I, personally, am not using it for backup. I understand it is storage, not backup.
I am using OneDrive to be able to access my files from anywhere.
I am using a third party utility (currently CrashPaln but going to soon be BackBlaze) to do versioning and/or backup.
I would love to get to the ML way of no local data, but just don't see how it's feasible for what I am looking for.
That was kind of the reason I started this thread. How do I replicate what I am doing solely in the cloud. Is that a better way of asking the question?
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
And in that case, if you are trying to use a sync system as a backup mechanism then you must handle the decoupling and versioning on your end before it syncs, not after.
I, personally, am not using it for backup. I understand it is storage, not backup.
I am using OneDrive to be able to access my files from anywhere.
I am using a third party utility (currently CrashPaln but going to soon be BackBlaze) to do versioning and/or backup.
I would love to get to the ML way of no local data, but just don't see how it's feasible for what I am looking for.
That was kind of the reason I started this thread. How do I replicate what I am doing solely in the cloud. Is that a better way of asking the question?
Well, OneDrive is designed around there being local file stores. It's not a means of replacing local files, it's a means of making them work better for specific use cases. I can't imagine trying to use OneDrive for this kind of use case.
-
This is where ownCloud, for example, works great. ownCloud with StorageCraft or Unitrends backups, for example. Fully hosted, versioning, decoupled backups with file level restore, backup level versioning, etc.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
This is where ownCloud, for example, works great. ownCloud with StorageCraft or Unitrends backups, for example. Fully hosted, versioning, decoupled backups with file level restore, backup level versioning, etc.
That's assuming you do it all local - you could go with DO and then they do their backups.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
This is where ownCloud, for example, works great. ownCloud with StorageCraft or Unitrends backups, for example. Fully hosted, versioning, decoupled backups with file level restore, backup level versioning, etc.
That's assuming you do it all local - you could go with DO and then they do their backups.
I can use those tools with DO too.
-
Well, I am trying to find a sweet spot of ease/cost as well.
Again, I'd like to be able to recommend something to the average user who says
1-how do I get my stuff in the cloud
2-how do i do backups
3-how do I protect myself from cryptolocker
And on and on.Something like BackBlaze might honestly be enough for them.
Full backups, versioning, and they can access files online.
That might be the answer right there.
I still contend non-local storage is certainly not for the average user. I think local storage with BackBlaze (or equivalent) is the way to go. If there is a need for security, then you have to investiagte something else.
-
@BRRABill said:
Well, I am trying to find a sweet spot of ease/cost as well.
Again, I'd like to be able to recommend something to the average user who says
1-how do I get my stuff in the cloud
2-how do i do backups
3-how do I protect myself from cryptolocker
And on and on.Something like BackBlaze might honestly be enough for them.
Full backups, versioning, and they can access files online.
That might be the answer right there.
I still contend non-local storage is certainly not for the average user. I think local storage with BackBlaze (or equivalent) is the way to go. If there is a need for security, then you have to investiagte something else.
And I contend that if you even have this discussion at all, you are no longer talking about the needs of an average user.
Average user = 100% hosted on ChromeOS or similar.
If you have Windows needs, you are into special cases (common, but not average) and your approach of "for the average user" is no longer applicable.
-
I think that there are two base mistakes in the line of logic...
- That there is anything that even slightly equals a one size fits all.
- That complex storage needs are needed for the 80% that represents the average user, both mean and median.
Most people need access to email, web and nothing more (unless video games.) That's about it. Most are quite content to store anything addition that is needed with Google Drive, Flickr and the like.
-
For the average user, everything that they need from versioning to storage to backups is available integrated with their desktop...
-
But then you're comparing needs with reality and we need to come back to reality because Chromebooks aren't the norm, not even close!
-
@Dashrender said:
But then you're comparing needs with reality and we need to come back to reality because Chromebooks aren't the norm, not even close!
And that's the common mistake.... comparing what we should advise against what we assume people will do anyway. Once we assume that they won't listen and will do stupid things, there is no point in us having these discussions or being involved. On average people will run old Windows, ignore update messages, take no backups and try to blame us for not protecting them even when they refuse to listen. What people are likely to do is a moot point.
The discussion is about how we advise people. And the advice is, 80% of the time, Chromebooks and embrace the ecosystem. If you fall outside of that baseline, you have special needs and there isn't anything approaching a simplistic approach.
Under no conditions should we ever advise being stupid because we assume people will be stupid anyway.
-
@Dashrender said:
... because Chromebooks aren't the norm, not even close!
Yes they are. We are discussing what people should be using, and Chromebooks are very much the norm. Vastly the norm.
You don't rule out BackBlaze because "most people don't run it", right? So don't treat Chromebooks differently.
