Question start local backup, resume as remote backup?

[jtm79]

I have a Synology DS416 with 5 TB of data I'd like to backup. I'd like to use a friend's Synology DS418 as the backup destination.
The difficulty is my internet connection is low-bandwidth and capped per-month. It would take about 10 months to backup my 5 TB to my friend's DS418 over the internet.

I considered initializing a backup locally using a USB-connected disk on my DS416. After my entire DS416 is backed up, I could physically move that disk to my friend's DS418. The disk would be connected to my friend's DS418 via USB, and I could resume smaller daily backup updates. This way, I'm not overusing my meager internet connection.

How do I accomplish something like this using Hyper Backup (or some other software)? The requirements are: 1. my backup data is encrypted 2. can work using a meager internet connection.

(cross-post Synology Community)

 

[jeyare]

it doesn’t work, you need use still the same (unchanged) target (usb or remote) for the data backup in incremental backup scenario.

 

[fredbert]

Is that true? When creating a HB task there are options to re-link to existing task which I'm sure I've done when moving a HB vault from USB 'shared folder' to an internal shared folder (or something like that). I confess I didn't try with an encrypted vault.

If the friend is close enough to do a trial runs then I would test out different things on a small amount of data.

 

[Rusty]

Only time I have done something similar was with migration of data towards C2 as a destination. So I had one NAS backup to C2 and then I wanted another NAS to pickup that task. Copied the same data from one NAS to other (same structure) and then used HB on a new nas to relink to my same destination on C2. To this day that works just fine.

Ofc OP has a different scenario. His source stays the same but the destination is different. Still I think relink would work considering its also scanning source and destination for data and metadata to compare and relink the task.

Agree with @fredbert, a test on a smaller scale data would confirm this.

 

[akahan]

I just tried it (but without an encrypted vault, though I don't see why that would make a difference.) After backing up locally to the USB, you'd mount the USB at your friend's house as a shared folder, and then, when you get back to your home, you'd "Relink to existing task" designating the destination folder on your USB drive connected to your friend's system. Of course, you'd have to have a user account on your friend's system, and the user account would have to have read/write access to your USB drive there

 

[fredbert]

Of course, you'd have to have a user account on your friend's system, and the user account would have to have read/write access to your USB drive there

Of course, but what are the alternatives?

• Be the master and gatekeeper of your data: You could use a DS1xxj instead and thus control all access to the data at a logical level. To protect at a physical level (hardware tampering) would require encryption of shares and/or HB vault.
  • But unless the NAS is in a secured container the reset button can provide anyone with physical access the ability to gain access to the NAS: reset admin access and then login themselves.
  • Placing a server device on a flat LAN exposes the LAN owner to attack from a device over which they have no control. They must trust the admin/users of that device to firstly configure it secure and secondly not themselves orchestrate malicious activity.
• Using a USB drive on the remote NAS: Cheaper than a small NAS but relies on controls provides by the host NAS's admin.
  • The responsibility is for the host admin to set up access that both protects the host NAS and the HB backup drive from each other.
  • Tampering is less easy to detect that for a dedicated HB NAS which would be offline during tampering. But physical access has already been granted anyway so the data exposure is similar.
  • Use of strong encryption on the HB vault will (should) mean that the HB task (client NAS) has the keys and not the hosted NAS.

In reality, if you trust your friend and they are competent in managing their NAS then it should be sufficient to use a USB drive off their NAS and then HB vault encryption. You could use a USB enclosure that encrypts the disk (such as the WD myBook Studio* line) but unless the NAS can interact with the unlock mechanism you aren't going to get much mileage out of it.

I'm not sure how it would stand against legal action but by using HB vault encryption you friend could argue that any data you place on their NAS is nothing to do with them and you have sole responsibility for the legality of any material in the encrypted archive.


*these WD apply encryption to the HD even when you don't enable passwords. They provide normal unprotected USB access but you can't crack the case and move the disk to a new case and access the data ... the data is 'keyed' to the original case's logic board.

 

[Telos]

I wouldn't want to tie up a USB port on my friend's NAS.

Maybe I missed the distance factor, but why take your NAS to your friend's location, run the backup over local LAN, then all is done.

 

[akahan]

I wouldn't want to tie up a USB port on my friend's NAS.

Maybe I missed the distance factor, but why take your NAS to your friend's location, run the backup over local LAN, then all is done.

I got the impression that he wanted to attach a USB drive to his friend’s DS so he didn’t fill his friend’s DS with 5TB of his own data.

 

[fredbert]

I got the impression that he wanted to attach a USB drive to his friend’s DS so he didn’t fill his friend’s DS with 5TB of his own data.

My assumption too. Obviously it's between them to decide what's the most agreeable solution.

 

[Telos]

If that's the motive, use a 120j (or a used 213j) fitted with a 10TB drive. Locate at friend's house. Or offer to provide equal offsite backup for the friend's NAS.

That way you can manage your entire backup independently, via QC/DDNS/VPN.