USB Flash Backup 2.1.5.16 Crack
Pamula Harrison
When I ping backup.unraid.net, it does resolve 54.70.72.154. However, the pings are 100% loss. Not sure if unraid's server just doesn't respond to ping requests. When I checked today when I got home from work. It had successfully uploaded. I didn't make any changes to my firewall since trying yesterday. Not sure why it didn't work yesterday and all of a sudden it worked today. Thanks for your suggestion!
I have tried the same thing. Ping = Failed. Tried DNS change via router to 8.8.8.8 = Failed. Then I tried it via the network setting in Unraid. = Failed. What's weird is that my main server is working fine. Any help would be great. (Please note. The server in question is more of a testing rig so that I can learn Unraid more and expand on it. But I want to make sure that if I switch it to being used for other things that the backup works.)
The ping itself is meant to fail, the reason we are doing this test is to confirm that 'backup.unraid.net' resolves to a valid IP. If you have set your DNS esrvers to 8.8.8.8 then it should. Note: this is an old thread, so the IP mentioned here is not the only valid one. Please post the output of the ping command so I can review it.
The two things holding flash back from being suitable for general-purpose backups are capacity and price. Flash drives generally have a lower overall capacity and a higher cost per gigabyte than spinning disks, although the gap between the two is narrowing. Backing up petabytes of data to flash storage is both impractical and cost prohibitive, at least for now.
Flash is well-suited to providing continuous backups of highly transactional data. And the technology might be a good choice, for instance, for backing up heavily used databases. Although all-flash arrays can provide the level of performance needed to back up such a database, storage connectivity plays an equally important role. The speed at which data can be transmitted from the database server to the backup target limits the overall backup throughput.
Flash backups are not the only choice for backing up rapidly changing data. A standard storage array can achieve an IOPS level equal to that of a flash array if enough disks are used. However, the cumulative capacity of the disks in such an array is often far greater than what an organization might need, resulting in wasted capacity. Rather than paying for unused capacity and incurring potentially higher maintenance costs (because there are a larger number of disks to replace as they wear out), some organizations opt to use flash rather than traditional arrays.
Other organizations choose to use all-flash arrays as a way to decrease disk-related heat and noise. Because flash disks do not contain moving parts, they consume less power and produce far less heat than traditional disks, while also running silently.
Flash backups are sometimes used as a way to enable simultaneous server backups. Even though all-flash backups are most commonly associated with protecting high-demand workloads, a flash storage array also works well for simultaneously backing up multiple lower demand workloads. As such, flash backups could be used to significantly reduce the data backup window or number of backup appliances required to provide continuous protection for an organization's resources.
I'm also having the same issue. (Unraid 10.11.4)
I tried investigating the problem a little deeper and was able to find out that te issue might have something to do with a invalid ssh key. Unraid ist trying, in the background, to establish a ssh connection to their backup server but it gets prevented because of an invalid public ssh key. Therefore the 'permission denied' error.
I tried investigating the problem a little deeper and was able to find out that te issue might have something to do with a invalid ssh key. Unraid ist trying, in the background, to establish a ssh connection to their backup server but it gets prevented because of an invalid public ssh key. Therefore the 'permission denied' error.
I got mine to work, I noticed that there was a warning sign next to my server name. In the Space Invader video he tells you to run "unraid-api restart" I had to click "Sign out of Unraid.net", then log-in back in Unraid.net and then run that command to restart the api. The warning went away and I was able to get the cloud backup.
Would you please uninstall and reinstall the My Servers plugin? Your system might be using an older cached copy of some javascript, this will force it to get the latest. Then you can sign back in and try the backup.
I'm experiencing this issue as well. I'm running the latest version of Unraid Connect (2023.09.08.0637). The Unraid Connect's flash backup section says "Activated: Not up-to-date" with "Permission Denied" below it. I was following through what @Mathy and @ljm42 and get "[email protected]: Permission denied (publickey)" when I run 'ssh -T [email protected]'. I tried uninstalling and then reinstalling the plugin but still get the same error. I tried to select 'update' from the plugin's flash backup section from both my server URLs without any luck.
Recently, Unraid has been crashing frequently (once a week-ish), and becoming completely unresponsive (no webUI, power button stops working). To try and debug this, I turned on the syslog server, and when it crashed today, I looked at my syslogs and discovered that the "my servers" plugin was trying to run a flash backup once every second, 24/7. I don't know if this is what was causing the crashes, but for two hours before the crash, the only thing that is in the syslog is these backups. (2 hours before the crash, it spun down an unmounted disk, then theres more backups.
Requirement: I need to configure a Flash back as we identified lot of small files in c drive around 48 lakhs files in 115 GB. I know that we will not able to take Flash backup for C drive. So, we are going to add a Local \SAN drive to move the small files folder to another drive.
I have a 3d printer, looks like a um2 clone, with a mega2560 in it. The maker is our of business. I am pretty sure about its firmware is some modification of Marlin firmware. I want to backup the current flash as well as the eeprom of the mega2560 and try a new version of marlin firmware. In case something bad happen I can still restore the whole system. I assume the maker didn't set the fuse to protect it from reading.
I'll share my instructions for reading the flash memory from a board, as well as for writing it back to a board in order to restore it. This can be done over the USB/serial connection, just as you would use when uploading a sketch normally.
I don't actually have experience with doing this with EEPROM. In theory, it appears you could use the same procedure, except with the adjustment of changing the -Uflash part of the avrdude commands to -Ueeprom, per the AVRDUDE instructions:
-manual/avrdude_4.html#Option-Descriptions
Could you just swap the Mega for another one and avoid the problem of having to make a backup? To ensure the backup is correct and restore-able you will need another Mega to test the backup on anyway. If you make a backup and have to test it on the original Mega - you could end up with a non-functioning Mega and a useless backup.
Earlier this month, we briefly looked at the future of modern data protection solutions. We highlighted cost efficiency as one requirement. Can an all-flash secondary storage design meet the efficiency rule, or do we need to think outside the box and look at the holistic view of a hybrid system?
Back in 2013, I worked with IBM to promote the combination of ProtecTIER and FlashSystem as a high-performance data protection solution. The premise at the time was simple; de-duplicating appliances create highly random workloads, so the only way to achieve fast restore performance was to use all-flash storage.
Fast-forward to 2022, and the storage world looks a lot different to those technologies of the early flash days. Modern flash systems almost exclusively use TLC or QLC NAND, offer large capacity drives, while costs have dropped substantially. So, the idea of an all-flash secondary storage platform makes even more sense today, right? Perhaps not.
Prior to the challenges introduced by ransomware attacks, secondary data in the form of backups followed a well-understood ageing pattern. Backup data moves from active to inactive over time, with the relative importance of a restore reducing in line with activity. Generally speaking, historic restores are not time-dependent for production workloads, although data recovery for legal and compliance reasons is still important.
The impact of ransomware has changed the data protection landscape. The time between infection and activation of a ransomware attack could be as long as 300 days, which increases the importance of long-term backup data. Furthermore, if a ransomware attack requires recovery from backup, the recovery process may need access to large amounts of backup data to do a full restore of all applications. This requirement means archived backups like those on the public cloud or moved to tape could have an impact on recovery time objectives and internal service level agreements.
While these requirements could be met with an all-flash solution, most businesses will find it hard to justify placing massive amounts of inactive data onto all-flash systems. Instead, cost-effective disk hybrid systems will be the answer.
Of course, a hybrid system needs to have the capabilities to understand the needs of data restore and not fall back to the slow backup appliances of the early 2000s that IBM was looking to solve with ProtectTIER.
aa06259810