The local history archive where I volunteer is proposing to put all
it's files on the cloud. I know very little about the cloud. As far as
my knowledge goes, rather than having your computer storage in your
own PC or laptop on an SSD or HDD, it's like having your data on
someone else's computer that can be anything from next door to
thousands of miles away, so I have questions.

How secure is it against 'bad actors' who may want to steal
information, or simply delete it or infect it out of malice? Is it
more secure than a domestic computer with reasonable anti-virus and
firewall protection?

One of the claims being made in our case is that it will reduce our
carbon footprint. While I can see that if our particular cloud
computer is based in Iceland for example, where all the electricity is
generated by renewables, then we may indeed reduce our carbon
footprint, but I guess in general that won't be the case. It may
reduce our electricity bills a fraction (we have one file server and
six elderly PC's in use, mornings only, four days per week, so not
many KWh's), but I guess that would be offset against charges to use
the cloud, and in most cases (Iceland excepted) that electricity would
not be renewable, just not generated in the UK. So is it actually
'green'? I see the Beeb, normally an ardent supporter of all things
aimed at reducing CO2, is critical of the cloud.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001hzb3 and
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/64625655

Is it backed up anywhere (if so, where), so that if the computer
holding it is destroyed either deliberately or by some natural event
(Iceland gets volcanoes that pop up in unexpected places!), there are
copies elsewhere in another part of the cloud that can be accessed to
restore the original data?

--
Chris

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:57:56 +0100
Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> The local history archive where I volunteer is proposing to put all
> it's files on the cloud. I know very little about the cloud. As far as
> my knowledge goes, rather than having your computer storage in your
> own PC or laptop on an SSD or HDD, it's like having your data on
> someone else's computer that can be anything from next door to
> thousands of miles away, so I have questions.
>
> How secure is it against 'bad actors' who may want to steal
> information, or simply delete it or infect it out of malice? Is it
> more secure than a domestic computer with reasonable anti-virus and
> firewall protection?

Nobody has any way of knowing. One would hope that rented server space
should be extremely well protected, but on the other hand, it will be a
bigger target and may be vulnerable to attacks from other users. Even
Microsoft has been hacked.

>
> One of the claims being made in our case is that it will reduce our
> carbon footprint. While I can see that if our particular cloud
> computer is based in Iceland for example, where all the electricity is
> generated by renewables, then we may indeed reduce our carbon
> footprint, but I guess in general that won't be the case. It may
> reduce our electricity bills a fraction (we have one file server and
> six elderly PC's in use, mornings only, four days per week, so not
> many KWh's), but I guess that would be offset against charges to use
> the cloud, and in most cases (Iceland excepted) that electricity would
> not be renewable, just not generated in the UK. So is it actually
> 'green'? I see the Beeb, normally an ardent supporter of all things
> aimed at reducing CO2, is critical of the cloud.
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001hzb3 and
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/64625655

I really wouldn't take that aspect into account. It's your data that is
important. Nobody's going to pay you for being some unquantifiable
value of 'green'.

You might examine a proposed contract carefully, to see if the hosting
company will acquire any rights to the data. Once upon a time,
customers' email was considered confidential, and email hosts made a
point of saying the email was guaranteed private and was never read
by the host. After some years, some people started noticing they were
getting adverts connected with their emails and it turned out that many
hosts had quietly dropped that guarantee.

Possibly your data has no commercial value, but some of it may be
covered by someone's copyright.

>
> Is it backed up anywhere (if so, where), so that if the computer
> holding it is destroyed either deliberately or by some natural event
> (Iceland gets volcanoes that pop up in unexpected places!), there are
> copies elsewhere in another part of the cloud that can be accessed to
> restore the original data?
>

It certainly ought to be, and the details will be part of the contract,
or at least mentioned in the marketing. If I was doing this I would
probably try to maintain my own backup copy on hard drives.

--
Joe

On 10 Apr 2024 at 21:42:33 BST, "Joe" <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

> You might examine a proposed contract carefully, to see if the hosting
> company will acquire any rights to the data. Once upon a time,
> customers' email was considered confidential, and email hosts made a
> point of saying the email was guaranteed private and was never read
> by the host. After some years, some people started noticing they were
> getting adverts connected with their emails and it turned out that many
> hosts had quietly dropped that guarantee.

I would have said that the other thing to beware of is where the data is
actually hosted and what path it takes to get from you to there. The Yanks
have form for being officious that if the data is hosted in the US, or perhaps
even only passes through the US to get to the server, they give themselves the
right to have access to it if ordered by some tuppeny-ha'penny court in
Armpit, Nebraska or similar.

--
"Once you adopt the unix paradigm, the variants cease to be a problem - you bitch, of course, but that's because bitching is fun, unlike M$ OS's, where bitching is required to keep your head from exploding." - S Stremler in afc

On 10 Apr 2024 21:48:05 GMT, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:

>On 10 Apr 2024 at 21:42:33 BST, "Joe" <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
>
>> You might examine a proposed contract carefully, to see if the hosting
>> company will acquire any rights to the data. Once upon a time,
>> customers' email was considered confidential, and email hosts made a
>> point of saying the email was guaranteed private and was never read
>> by the host. After some years, some people started noticing they were
>> getting adverts connected with their emails and it turned out that many
>> hosts had quietly dropped that guarantee.
>
>I would have said that the other thing to beware of is where the data is
>actually hosted and what path it takes to get from you to there. The Yanks
>have form for being officious that if the data is hosted in the US, or perhaps
>even only passes through the US to get to the server, they give themselves the
>right to have access to it if ordered by some tuppeny-ha'penny court in
>Armpit, Nebraska or similar.

Indeed. If you upload your data to the Cloud you need to be sure
there's nothing in it which is personal/confidential or which could
give rise to adverse legal consequences if made known to any third
party, because you're effectively sharing it with God knows who.
There's no such thing as a free lunch so why would any rational
enterprise want to spend good money on electricity to help you out and
get nothing back in return as so many of these Cloud storage services
do. They often offer a Gigabyte or more storage for free. Why would
they do that? What are they getting out of it that you don't know
about?

In message <l7ofokF2mreU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater
<tim@streater.me.uk> writes
>On 10 Apr 2024 at 21:42:33 BST, "Joe" <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
>
>> You might examine a proposed contract carefully, to see if the hosting
>> company will acquire any rights to the data. Once upon a time,
>> customers' email was considered confidential, and email hosts made a
>> point of saying the email was guaranteed private and was never read
>> by the host. After some years, some people started noticing they were
>> getting adverts connected with their emails and it turned out that many
>> hosts had quietly dropped that guarantee.
>
>I would have said that the other thing to beware of is where the data is
>actually hosted and what path it takes to get from you to there. The Yanks
>have form for being officious that if the data is hosted in the US, or perhaps
>even only passes through the US to get to the server, they give themselves the
>right to have access to it if ordered by some tuppeny-ha'penny court in
>Armpit, Nebraska or similar.
>

Another thing to bear in mind is that it is not unknown for cloud
systems to disappear (hosting companies cease trading). If the only
place that you've got your data stored is on that cloud, then you are
stuffed.

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "diy" with "news" and reverse the domain

If you are reading this from a web interface eg DIY Banter,
DIY Forum or Google Groups, please be aware this is NOT a forum, and
you are merely using a web portal to a USENET group. Many people block
posters coming from web portals due to perceieved SPAM or inaneness.
For a better method of access, please see:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 10/04/2024 20:57, Chris Hogg wrote:

> The local history archive where I volunteer is proposing to put all
> it's files on the cloud. I know very little about the cloud. As far as
> my knowledge goes, rather than having your computer storage in your
> own PC or laptop on an SSD or HDD, it's like having your data on
> someone else's computer that can be anything from next door to
> thousands of miles away, so I have questions.
>
> How secure is it against 'bad actors' who may want to steal
> information, or simply delete it or infect it out of malice? Is it
> more secure than a domestic computer with reasonable anti-virus and
> firewall protection?

Cloud storage can be fairly secure if access to it is controlled
carefully. On the bright side it is probably better protected against
equipment failure. While it is unlikely that one of the big cloud
providers will easily be hacked directly and the data compromised, you
need to be vigilant that the users of it do not compromise the security
by getting phished or socially engineered etc.

> One of the claims being made in our case is that it will reduce our
> carbon footprint. While I can see that if our particular cloud
> computer is based in Iceland for example, where all the electricity is
> generated by renewables, then we may indeed reduce our carbon
> footprint, but I guess in general that won't be the case. It may
> reduce our electricity bills a fraction (we have one file server and
> six elderly PC's in use, mornings only, four days per week, so not
> many KWh's), but I guess that would be offset against charges to use
> the cloud, and in most cases (Iceland excepted) that electricity would
> not be renewable, just not generated in the UK. So is it actually
> 'green'? I see the Beeb, normally an ardent supporter of all things
> aimed at reducing CO2, is critical of the cloud.
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001hzb3 and
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/64625655

The first question I suppose is what are you planning to move to the
cloud? Just data, or in effect the whole server?

Most cloud providers have the capabilities to run virtual machines in
the cloud, and they often sit upon sophisticated platforms that can
shift VMs about onto physical severs dynamically based on the load,
amount of traffic, time of day etc. The energy requirements for that
flexibility may be higher, but they can also be shared between more users.

If power saving is of particular concern, you may be able to do
something about that fairly easily locally... A low power small form
factor PC would be able to run all of your current PCs as virtual
machines on the one physical computer, then something very cheap and low
power like a batch of Raspberry pi computers could serve as a Remote
Desktop Protocol client to access them. (or better still, get the users
to use their own hardware and lekky for access!)

> Is it backed up anywhere (if so, where),

If you opt for backup services then yes, but don't assume it will be by
default. (it will be fault tolerant storage - so you are unlikely to
lose data due to a disk failure, but that does not protect you from user
error, deleting or overwriting good data with bad.

> so that if the computer
> holding it is destroyed either deliberately or by some natural event
> (Iceland gets volcanoes that pop up in unexpected places!), there are
> copies elsewhere in another part of the cloud that can be accessed to
> restore the original data?

The term "cloud" is a bit nebulous (yeah, I know :-)

It could just mean a lone physical server sat in a data centre, but more
likely these days it will be a virtual server, storage for which will
likely be on some kind of shared fault tolerant storage device (SAN
etc), and the actual virtual machine image will be deployed with many
others onto physical hardware. So a server going tits up or suffering a
disk failure is unlikely to even be noticeable at your end, and things
can be automatically migrated to working hardware.

Cloud storage normally allows multiple ways to download data - many also
offer the option of sending out physical media for quick disaster
recovery[1].

[1] "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes
hurtling down the highway." –Andrew Tanenbaum, 1981

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On 10/04/2024 20:57, Chris Hogg wrote:
> The local history archive where I volunteer is proposing to put all
> it's files on the cloud. I know very little about the cloud. As far as
> my knowledge goes, rather than having your computer storage in your
> own PC or laptop on an SSD or HDD, it's like having your data on
> someone else's computer that can be anything from next door to
> thousands of miles away, so I have questions.

I have copies on multiple computers, as well as the cloud.

>
> How secure is it against 'bad actors' who may want to steal
> information, or simply delete it or infect it out of malice? Is it
> more secure than a domestic computer with reasonable anti-virus and
> firewall protection?
>

Not much different. Modern social-engineered attacks are designed to
persuade you to run something with elevated privileges which encrypts
your data.

> One of the claims being made in our case is that it will reduce our
> carbon footprint. While I can see that if our particular cloud
> computer is based in Iceland for example, where all the electricity is
> generated by renewables, then we may indeed reduce our carbon
> footprint, but I guess in general that won't be the case. It may
> reduce our electricity bills a fraction (we have one file server and
> six elderly PC's in use, mornings only, four days per week, so not
> many KWh's), but I guess that would be offset against charges to use
> the cloud, and in most cases (Iceland excepted) that electricity would
> not be renewable, just not generated in the UK. So is it actually
> 'green'? I see the Beeb, normally an ardent supporter of all things
> aimed at reducing CO2, is critical of the cloud.
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001hzb3 and
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/64625655

I would say this is "green washing"

>
> Is it backed up anywhere (if so, where), so that if the computer
> holding it is destroyed either deliberately or by some natural event
> (Iceland gets volcanoes that pop up in unexpected places!), there are
> copies elsewhere in another part of the cloud that can be accessed to
> restore the original data?
>

That depends on your cloud contract. I would say in the case of the free
ones no, but then how good are your existing backups? Have you ever done
a cold restore? Can you re-build the server Operating System? In the
event of a fire or lightening or power surge are you good to go.

I use one-drive so all my PCs have copied of the files. I also do weekly
backups to a small NAS box so have multiple copies.

Dave

On 11-Apr-24 0:26, David Wade wrote:
> On 10/04/2024 20:57, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> The local history archive where I volunteer is proposing to put all
>> it's files on the cloud. I know very little about the cloud. As far as
>> my knowledge goes, rather than having your computer storage in your
>> own PC or laptop on an SSD or HDD, it's like having your data on
>> someone else's computer that can be anything from next door to
>> thousands of miles away, so I have questions.
>
> I have copies on multiple computers, as well as the cloud.
>
>>
>> How secure is it against 'bad actors' who may want to steal
>> information, or simply delete it or infect it out of malice? Is it
>> more secure than a domestic computer with reasonable anti-virus and
>> firewall protection?
>>
>
>
> Not much different. Modern social-engineered attacks are designed to
> persuade you to run something with elevated privileges which encrypts
> your data.
>
>
>> One of the claims being made in our case is that it will reduce our
>> carbon footprint. While I can see that if our particular cloud
>> computer is based in Iceland for example, where all the electricity is
>> generated by renewables, then we may indeed reduce our carbon
>> footprint, but I guess in general that won't be the case. It may
>> reduce our electricity bills a fraction (we have one file server and
>> six elderly PC's in use, mornings only, four days per week, so not
>> many KWh's), but I guess that would be offset against charges to use
>> the cloud, and in most cases (Iceland excepted) that electricity would
>> not be renewable, just not generated in the UK. So is it actually
>> 'green'? I see the Beeb, normally an ardent supporter of all things
>> aimed at reducing CO2, is critical of the cloud.
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001hzb3 and
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/64625655
>
> I would say this is "green washing"
>
>>
>> Is it backed up anywhere (if so, where), so that if the computer
>> holding it is destroyed either deliberately or by some natural event
>> (Iceland gets volcanoes that pop up in unexpected places!), there are
>> copies elsewhere in another part of the cloud that can be accessed to
>> restore the original data?
>>
>
> That depends on your cloud contract. I would say in the case of the free
> ones no, but then how good are your existing backups? Have you ever done
> a cold restore? Can you re-build the server Operating System? In the
> event of a fire or lightening or power surge are you good to go.

You could & should go through the contract in fine detail when it's
first in place.
However (as an example) gmail send me an email from time to time which
mentions that there have been a few changes to their T&Cs.
There will be a link to the new T&Cs, but rarely is there a detailed
explanation of what the changes are in a form that I can easily digest.

In other words, your "Cloud" contract might be everything you want on
day one, but changes at some later point might come back to bite you.

--
Sam Plusnet

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:57:56 +0100, Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>One of the claims being made in our case is that it will reduce our
>carbon footprint. While I can see that if our particular cloud
>computer is based in Iceland for example, where all the electricity is
>generated by renewables, then we may indeed reduce our carbon
>footprint, but I guess in general that won't be the case.

Sounds a bit like someone has heard buzzwords and is making suggestions without
knowing what work or problems they entail?

If carbon footprint is a main reason for doing it: get an electric contract
with a smaller carbon foot print, i.e. one that uses lots of renewables. Job
done...

Also, it sounds as if only the file server would move? Then getting newer "low
power" PCs locally may be a better option to reduce power use. A small brick
containing all the works, plus keyboard, mouse and screen, done.

Thomas Prufer

On 10/04/2024 20:57, Chris Hogg wrote:
> The local history archive where I volunteer is proposing to put all
> it's files on the cloud. I know very little about the cloud. As far as
> my knowledge goes, rather than having your computer storage in your
> own PC or laptop on an SSD or HDD, it's like having your data on
> someone else's computer that can be anything from next door to
> thousands of miles away, so I have questions.
>
> How secure is it against 'bad actors' who may want to steal
> information, or simply delete it or infect it out of malice? Is it
> more secure than a domestic computer with reasonable anti-virus and
> firewall protection?
>
> One of the claims being made in our case is that it will reduce our
> carbon footprint. While I can see that if our particular cloud
> computer is based in Iceland for example, where all the electricity is
> generated by renewables, then we may indeed reduce our carbon
> footprint, but I guess in general that won't be the case. It may
> reduce our electricity bills a fraction (we have one file server and
> six elderly PC's in use, mornings only, four days per week, so not
> many KWh's), but I guess that would be offset against charges to use
> the cloud, and in most cases (Iceland excepted) that electricity would
> not be renewable, just not generated in the UK. So is it actually
> 'green'? I see the Beeb, normally an ardent supporter of all things
> aimed at reducing CO2, is critical of the cloud.
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001hzb3 and
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/64625655
>
> Is it backed up anywhere (if so, where), so that if the computer
> holding it is destroyed either deliberately or by some natural event
> (Iceland gets volcanoes that pop up in unexpected places!), there are
> copies elsewhere in another part of the cloud that can be accessed to
> restore the original data?
>

So you have all your eggs in one basket.
I would back up on multiple DVDs written at very slow speeds for the
deepest of laser pits, stored in hermetically sealed correct
,maybevacuum, environments to minimise corrossion of the Aluminium , in
different sites in case of flood or fire and also multiple external HD
stored on different sites and also multiple datasticks.
Even the pro York Data Services the premier UK store of UK archaeology
data, you cannot find how they store it. Assumed to be RAID array which
can be infected with malware and brought down.

--
Global sea level rise to 2100 from curve-fitted existing altimetry data
<http://diverse.4mg.com/slr.htm>

On 2024-04-10, John Rumm wrote:

> On 10/04/2024 20:57, Chris Hogg wrote:

>> so that if the computer
>> holding it is destroyed either deliberately or by some natural event
>> (Iceland gets volcanoes that pop up in unexpected places!), there are
>> copies elsewhere in another part of the cloud that can be accessed to
>> restore the original data?
>
> The term "cloud" is a bit nebulous (yeah, I know :-)

Good one!

On 11/04/2024 09:15, N_Cook wrote:
> On 10/04/2024 20:57, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> The local history archive where I volunteer is proposing to put all
>> it's files on the cloud. I know very little about the cloud. As far as
>> my knowledge goes, rather than having your computer storage in your
>> own PC or laptop on an SSD or HDD, it's like having your data on
>> someone else's computer that can be anything from next door to
>> thousands of miles away, so I have questions.
>>
>> How secure is it against 'bad actors' who may want to steal
>> information, or simply delete it or infect it out of malice? Is it
>> more secure than a domestic computer with reasonable anti-virus and
>> firewall protection?
>>
>> One of the claims being made in our case is that it will reduce our
>> carbon footprint. While I can see that if our particular cloud
>> computer is based in Iceland for example, where all the electricity is
>> generated by renewables, then we may indeed reduce our carbon
>> footprint, but I guess in general that won't be the case. It may
>> reduce our electricity bills a fraction (we have one file server and
>> six elderly PC's in use, mornings only, four days per week, so not
>> many KWh's), but I guess that would be offset against charges to use
>> the cloud, and in most cases (Iceland excepted) that electricity would
>> not be renewable, just not generated in the UK. So is it actually
>> 'green'? I see the Beeb, normally an ardent supporter of all things
>> aimed at reducing CO2, is critical of the cloud.
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001hzb3 and
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/64625655
>>
>> Is it backed up anywhere (if so, where), so that if the computer
>> holding it is destroyed either deliberately or by some natural event
>> (Iceland gets volcanoes that pop up in unexpected places!), there are
>> copies elsewhere in another part of the cloud that can be accessed to
>> restore the original data?
>>
>
> So you have all your eggs in one basket.
> I would back up on multiple DVDs written at very slow speeds for the
> deepest of laser pits, stored in hermetically sealed correct
> ,maybevacuum,  environments to minimise corrossion of the Aluminium , in
> different sites in case of flood or fire and also multiple external HD
> stored on different sites and also multiple datasticks.

That would be nice, but challenging. I have nearly 400gb of data on my
Microsoft OneDrive so that is a mere 40 DVDs so unless I had multiple
machines I would pretty much have to dedicate my life to backing up my data.

> Even the pro York Data Services the premier UK store of UK archaeology
> data, you cannot find how they store it. Assumed to be RAID array which
> can be infected with malware  and brought down.
>

Any writeable storage can be infected by Malware, even your DVDs. It can
lurk for ages before it activates and corrupts your live system. The
data is unlikely to be on a traditional RAID array. I would suspect its
some kind of SAN (Storage Area Network) hopefully with multiple copies.

If you build things properly you can have data replicated in real time
across multiple sites. If you also have multiple snapshots then you can
roll back the data after malware infections, that is assuming there is
physical separation of the data stored in the SAN, and the "data" used
to load the software into the SAN which always used to be the case, but
its been a while since I worked with such stuff.

as with anything it can be expensive, but the ransomware may be even
more expensive.

>--
>Global sea level rise to 2100 from curve-fitted existing altimetry data
><http://diverse.4mg.com/slr.htm>

oh that brings back memories from working at NERC Bidston where one of
the things we did was to track mean sea level.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/external/permanent-service-for-mean-sea

John Rumm <see.my.signature@nowhere.null> wrote:
> The term "cloud" is a bit nebulous (yeah, I know :-)
>
> It could just mean a lone physical server sat in a data centre, but more
> likely these days it will be a virtual server, storage for which will
> likely be on some kind of shared fault tolerant storage device (SAN
> etc), and the actual virtual machine image will be deployed with many
> others onto physical hardware. So a server going tits up or suffering a
> disk failure is unlikely to even be noticeable at your end, and things
> can be automatically migrated to working hardware.
>
> Cloud storage normally allows multiple ways to download data - many also
> offer the option of sending out physical media for quick disaster
> recovery[1].

It is a question worth asking as to what this service actually provides.

In this case it's quite likely that the service being rented is 'data
storage' and not 'servers'. In other words somebody looks after storing the
data, and how they do that isn't something you interact with - they must run
some servers but where and how they run that isn't something you are exposed
to. The service offer you ways to move data in and out.

This can be called 'storage as a service' (STaaS) but can also be combined
with other services like online database tools which are more generally
'software as a service' or SaaS.

While it is possible to rent 'servers' and then run your own install of
software, that's probably not something you want unless there's a
good reason you need to manage the software running on top of the servers
that you rent. (cloudy people call this 'infrastructure as a service' or
IaaS because you're renting just the hardware, and the software is your own)

The OP is dead right that 'the cloud is someone else's computer' so the
questions to ask are about how much care the 'someone' takes with your data
and how they manage failures, access and prevent data breaches. And
billing, and also what happens if they raise the prices too much and you
want to leave.

You will want to work out what the steady-state running costs are likely to
be - while they may provide a better service than you could DIY, it may well
be more expensive than whatever you are doing at the moment.

(there may be some introductory offer or whatever, but be aware it's another
project to migrate data out of a cloud provider so it's not always
straightforward to hop over to somebody else - which is why the regular
pricing matters)

Theo

On 11/04/2024 10:52, David Wade wrote:
> On 11/04/2024 09:15, N_Cook wrote:
>> On 10/04/2024 20:57, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>> The local history archive where I volunteer is proposing to put all
>>> it's files on the cloud. I know very little about the cloud. As far as
>>> my knowledge goes, rather than having your computer storage in your
>>> own PC or laptop on an SSD or HDD, it's like having your data on
>>> someone else's computer that can be anything from next door to
>>> thousands of miles away, so I have questions.
>>>
>>> How secure is it against 'bad actors' who may want to steal
>>> information, or simply delete it or infect it out of malice? Is it
>>> more secure than a domestic computer with reasonable anti-virus and
>>> firewall protection?
>>>
>>> One of the claims being made in our case is that it will reduce our
>>> carbon footprint. While I can see that if our particular cloud
>>> computer is based in Iceland for example, where all the electricity is
>>> generated by renewables, then we may indeed reduce our carbon
>>> footprint, but I guess in general that won't be the case. It may
>>> reduce our electricity bills a fraction (we have one file server and
>>> six elderly PC's in use, mornings only, four days per week, so not
>>> many KWh's), but I guess that would be offset against charges to use
>>> the cloud, and in most cases (Iceland excepted) that electricity would
>>> not be renewable, just not generated in the UK. So is it actually
>>> 'green'? I see the Beeb, normally an ardent supporter of all things
>>> aimed at reducing CO2, is critical of the cloud.
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001hzb3 and
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/64625655
>>>
>>> Is it backed up anywhere (if so, where), so that if the computer
>>> holding it is destroyed either deliberately or by some natural event
>>> (Iceland gets volcanoes that pop up in unexpected places!), there are
>>> copies elsewhere in another part of the cloud that can be accessed to
>>> restore the original data?
>>>
>>
>> So you have all your eggs in one basket.
>> I would back up on multiple DVDs written at very slow speeds for the
>> deepest of laser pits, stored in hermetically sealed correct
>> ,maybevacuum, environments to minimise corrossion of the Aluminium ,
>> in different sites in case of flood or fire and also multiple external
>> HD stored on different sites and also multiple datasticks.
>
> That would be nice, but challenging. I have nearly 400gb of data on my
> Microsoft OneDrive so that is a mere 40 DVDs so unless I had multiple
> machines I would pretty much have to dedicate my life to backing up my
> data.
>
>
>> Even the pro York Data Services the premier UK store of UK archaeology
>> data, you cannot find how they store it. Assumed to be RAID array
>> which can be infected with malware and brought down.
>>
>
> Any writeable storage can be infected by Malware, even your DVDs. It can
> lurk for ages before it activates and corrupts your live system. The
> data is unlikely to be on a traditional RAID array. I would suspect its
> some kind of SAN (Storage Area Network) hopefully with multiple copies.
>
> If you build things properly you can have data replicated in real time
> across multiple sites. If you also have multiple snapshots then you can
> roll back the data after malware infections, that is assuming there is
> physical separation of the data stored in the SAN, and the "data" used
> to load the software into the SAN which always used to be the case, but
> its been a while since I worked with such stuff.
>
> as with anything it can be expensive, but the ransomware may be even
> more expensive.
>
> >--
> >Global sea level rise to 2100 from curve-fitted existing altimetry data
> ><http://diverse.4mg.com/slr.htm>
>
> oh that brings back memories from working at NERC Bidston where one of
> the things we did was to track mean sea level.
>
> https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/external/permanent-service-for-mean-sea
>

The 'galling' thing about archiving is, the ancients got it right.
Use oak gall ink on goat skin and its perfectly readable 1000 years
later, ok now reddish-brown rather than black but excellent contrast.

--
Global sea level rise to 2100 from curve-fitted existing altimetry data
<http://diverse.4mg.com/slr.htm>

On 11/04/2024 10:52, David Wade wrote:
>
> >--
> >Global sea level rise to 2100 from curve-fitted existing altimetry data
> ><http://diverse.4mg.com/slr.htm>
>
> oh that brings back memories from working at NERC Bidston where one of
> the things we did was to track mean sea level.
>
> https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/external/permanent-service-for-mean-sea
>

An added reason for the record high sea level reached for Storm Pierrick
affecting the south coast.
The curves here should on average be coincident

https://ntslf.org/storm-surges/latest-surge-forecast?port=Newlyn&chrt=3

and for other UK ports.
The EA has interpreted the 'errors' as an error with the big data NTSLF
surge predictor.
But luckily in fact its an error with the calibrations of the tide gauges.
There is an anomolous increase in UK mean sea level over recent years,
beyond global SLR and local postglacial isostatic ground movement.
With a couple of NOC researchers currently but looks like due to excess
freshwater from Greenland, Baltic influx etc.
This 'error' is at least 0.15m and for the 3 days including 08/09 Apr
2024 was an rms error of 0.269m .
ie something like 0.27m needed adding to the NTSLF and UKHO tidecurves
and so tidetables, otherwise a normal spring tide this week , before any
surge was added on top.

--
Global sea level rise to 2100 from curve-fitted existing altimetry data
<http://diverse.4mg.com/slr.htm>

Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> Is it backed up anywhere (if so, where), so that if the computer
> holding it is destroyed either deliberately or by some natural event
> (Iceland gets volcanoes that pop up in unexpected places!), there are
> copies elsewhere in another part of the cloud that can be accessed to
> restore the original data?

Suppose you needed a database.

1. You could install MS Access[*] on a PC under your desk. We'd call that
'on premises' or 'on-prem'. Maybe you'd rather put that PC in a dedicated
room in the basement, but that's the same thing. Maintaining everything -
the hardware, the software, the power supply, the user accounts, ... is all
up to you.

[*] not a recommendation for database software!

2. You could rent a server in a datacentre somewhere, install Windows and MS
Access on it yourself. That's Infrastructure as a Service or IaaS. Here
the hardware is now somebody else's problem but the data stored on it (and
security and backups thereof) is yours. You would access it over the
internet not over the LAN but it would work roughly the same way.

3. Or you could pay Microsoft for the MS Access 365 web service. There MS
take care of both the hardware and the software and just provide you with a
login to the online version of Access. That's Software as a Service (SaaS).
MS take care of handling hardware failure, and they also look after the data
so if the hardware crashes the data is maintained. They may also maintain
availability, so that if the datacentre in Ireland becomes unavailable for
some reason, your query gets routed to an alternative server in Germany
which will handle it. They also take care of some of the management
overhead (eg checking who has access, managing their passwords, etc etc)

As you go through the levels, the provider is doing more work for you.
Like-for-like they will cost more, but can often work well if your needs are
small (if you only need to store 10GB then paying for 0.01% of someone
else's shared server is going to be cheaper than buying a PC and only using
0.01% of it)

What you cede going up the levels is control to do things how you please.
OTOH they probably do a better job than you will, and maybe you would rather
get on with doing your job and not managing servers.

As I said in my other post there are risks for you in terms of the
competence of the cloud provider, their billing and/or price rises, and the
complexity of switching provider should you decide to move elsewhere. Which
might be set against your competence to manage your own servers and the
costs of doing so, plus the risk to the organisation if you go under a bus.

Where you sit on the spectrum will depend on how much technical competency
and resources you have, as well as the particular business needs.

Theo

On 11 Apr 2024 15:47:07 +0100 (BST)
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> > Is it backed up anywhere (if so, where), so that if the computer
> > holding it is destroyed either deliberately or by some natural event
> > (Iceland gets volcanoes that pop up in unexpected places!), there
> > are copies elsewhere in another part of the cloud that can be
> > accessed to restore the original data?
>
> Suppose you needed a database.
>
> 1. You could install MS Access[*] on a PC under your desk. We'd
> call that 'on premises' or 'on-prem'. Maybe you'd rather put that PC
> in a dedicated room in the basement, but that's the same thing.
> Maintaining everything - the hardware, the software, the power
> supply, the user accounts, ... is all up to you.
>
> [*] not a recommendation for database software!

It's not bad as a Rapid Application Development environment for
a user front end to a database. The user interface is reasonably
good (and was in the days of Access2 on Win3), just don't use it to
store the data. Quite a lot can be done without needing to touch
program code.

>
> 2. You could rent a server in a datacentre somewhere, install Windows
> and MS Access on it yourself. That's Infrastructure as a Service or
> IaaS. Here the hardware is now somebody else's problem but the data
> stored on it (and security and backups thereof) is yours. You would
> access it over the internet not over the LAN but it would work
> roughly the same way.
>
> 3. Or you could pay Microsoft for the MS Access 365 web service.
> There MS take care of both the hardware and the software and just
> provide you with a login to the online version of Access. That's
> Software as a Service (SaaS). MS take care of handling hardware
> failure, and they also look after the data so if the hardware crashes
> the data is maintained. They may also maintain availability, so that
> if the datacentre in Ireland becomes unavailable for some reason,
> your query gets routed to an alternative server in Germany which will
> handle it. They also take care of some of the management overhead
> (eg checking who has access, managing their passwords, etc etc)
>

Just to add a note, Access can use a variety of database storage
systems, so you could use an in-house Access front end and an
outsourced SQL server (or other type) for the data. That gives you the
multiple user facility that Access by itself doesn't have (it does in
theory but it relies on operating system file locking, which is
....sub-optimal).

It also gives you a non-Access method of getting to the data for
troubleshooting, auditing or programmable access such as web
applications. It is also easy to dump an entire SQL database (in text
format) for your own backup and in an emergency, such as an Internet
outage, it can be restored to any SQL server and read.

>
> As you go through the levels, the provider is doing more work for
> you. Like-for-like they will cost more, but can often work well if
> your needs are small (if you only need to store 10GB then paying for
> 0.01% of someone else's shared server is going to be cheaper than
> buying a PC and only using 0.01% of it)
>
> What you cede going up the levels is control to do things how you
> please. OTOH they probably do a better job than you will, and maybe
> you would rather get on with doing your job and not managing servers.
>
> As I said in my other post there are risks for you in terms of the
> competence of the cloud provider, their billing and/or price rises,
> and the complexity of switching provider should you decide to move
> elsewhere. Which might be set against your competence to manage your
> own servers and the costs of doing so, plus the risk to the
> organisation if you go under a bus.
>
> Where you sit on the spectrum will depend on how much technical
> competency and resources you have, as well as the particular business
> needs.
>
> Theo

--
Joe

Thanks for all the advice and suggestions. I'm told that we will be
using MS365, so from what Theo has recently said about it, a lot of my
concerns should be taken care of. But still worth my enquiring from
the PTB here, if all those points have been taken into considerations.
Thanks again.

--
Chris

On 4/11/2024 6:03 AM, Theo wrote:
> John Rumm <see.my.signature@nowhere.null> wrote:
>> The term "cloud" is a bit nebulous (yeah, I know :-)
>>
>> It could just mean a lone physical server sat in a data centre, but more
>> likely these days it will be a virtual server, storage for which will
>> likely be on some kind of shared fault tolerant storage device (SAN
>> etc), and the actual virtual machine image will be deployed with many
>> others onto physical hardware. So a server going tits up or suffering a
>> disk failure is unlikely to even be noticeable at your end, and things
>> can be automatically migrated to working hardware.
>>
>> Cloud storage normally allows multiple ways to download data - many also
>> offer the option of sending out physical media for quick disaster
>> recovery[1].
>
> It is a question worth asking as to what this service actually provides.
>
> In this case it's quite likely that the service being rented is 'data
> storage' and not 'servers'. In other words somebody looks after storing the
> data, and how they do that isn't something you interact with - they must run
> some servers but where and how they run that isn't something you are exposed
> to. The service offer you ways to move data in and out.
>
> This can be called 'storage as a service' (STaaS) but can also be combined
> with other services like online database tools which are more generally
> 'software as a service' or SaaS.
>
> While it is possible to rent 'servers' and then run your own install of
> software, that's probably not something you want unless there's a
> good reason you need to manage the software running on top of the servers
> that you rent. (cloudy people call this 'infrastructure as a service' or
> IaaS because you're renting just the hardware, and the software is your own)
>
> The OP is dead right that 'the cloud is someone else's computer' so the
> questions to ask are about how much care the 'someone' takes with your data
> and how they manage failures, access and prevent data breaches. And
> billing, and also what happens if they raise the prices too much and you
> want to leave.
>
> You will want to work out what the steady-state running costs are likely to
> be - while they may provide a better service than you could DIY, it may well
> be more expensive than whatever you are doing at the moment.
>
> (there may be some introductory offer or whatever, but be aware it's another
> project to migrate data out of a cloud provider so it's not always
> straightforward to hop over to somebody else - which is why the regular
> pricing matters)
>
> Theo
>

I can think of a couple choices.

Archive.org (which was recently used to archive a government web site
for some country). There might be a charge for doing that, if you're
asking for "bulk help". Because they need the money to buy more
"storage trailers".

Backblaze (which backs up hard drive sized chunks).

Whereas other kinds of Cloud providers, have a little of everything.

*******

The OP should start by creating a list of requirements, and
when asking a question like this, present the summary of the
requirements. Maybe an RPi in the basement is enough :-)

I'm kinda curious how big the current (scanned) collection is.

For backups, the restoration may not be real time. With tiered
storage, your "web site" can be stored on tape, and the tape robot
has to extract the image and make it available on a disk drive
(for a limited time). To start your restoration, may involve
a 24 hour delay.

Paul

On 4/11/2024 5:52 AM, David Wade wrote:

> That would be nice, but challenging. I have nearly 400gb of data on
> my Microsoft OneDrive so that is a mere 40 DVDs so unless I had
> multiple machines I would pretty much have to dedicate my life to backing up my data.

That would be 4 discs out of this 25-pak.

Not nearly so challenging.

"VERBATIM AMERICAS LLC 98915 M-DISC BD-R 100GB 4X INKJET PRINT 25PK"

https://www.newegg.com/p/1J2-006M-00002

Verbatim makes it easy, with the five digit product code, to look
up the product code on a nearby website.

You will need a BluRay drive with the MDISC logo on it.

That's currently the largest disc I know of
(that uses a reasonable storage layer inside).

BluRay was "supposed to be marginal on USB2", which tells
you, on a good day, the read-back rate could be as
high as 30MB/sec. Maybe Wiki has an exact number.
The write is unlikely to be that fast, but it should
neatly beat a DVD on write.

Paul

On 11/04/2024 14:46, N_Cook wrote:
> error with the calibrations

should read
error with the residuals calibration

--
Global sea level rise to 2100 from curve-fitted existing altimetry data
<http://diverse.4mg.com/slr.htm>

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:15:55 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

>On 2024-04-10, John Rumm wrote:
>
>> On 10/04/2024 20:57, Chris Hogg wrote:
>
>>> so that if the computer
>>> holding it is destroyed either deliberately or by some natural event
>>> (Iceland gets volcanoes that pop up in unexpected places!), there are
>>> copies elsewhere in another part of the cloud that can be accessed to
>>> restore the original data?
>>
>> The term "cloud" is a bit nebulous (yeah, I know :-)
>
>Good one!

At first gance I read that as nefarious, not as clever but possibly
more accurate.

--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> Thanks for all the advice and suggestions. I'm told that we will be
> using MS365, so from what Theo has recently said about it, a lot of my
> concerns should be taken care of. But still worth my enquiring from
> the PTB here, if all those points have been taken into considerations.
> Thanks again.

For MS365 things to consider include:

- who will have access
- who will manage who has access
- what happens if data is breached (eg if one of the people above gets
phished)
- how much storage do you need

Often services like this are sold in bundles: X GB for Y users at £Z per
month. Typically the X/Y/Z are in tiers: the consumer offerings are:

1TB / 1 user / £5.99 per month
6TB / 6 users / £7.99 per month

If you go exceed the size or number of users then you need to go up to the
next tier, which can get expensive.

For businesses MS have per user per month pricing, which get increasingly
pricier:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/microsoft-365/business/compare-all-microsoft-365-business-products
https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/microsoft-365/business/compare-all-microsoft-365-business-products-no-teams

Whatever you do, it would be worth keeping offline backups - eg a couple of
hard drives in the filing cabinet - in case of some catastrophe like a
ransomware attack.

Theo

On 2024-04-12, AnthonyL wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:15:55 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2024-04-10, John Rumm wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/04/2024 20:57, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>
>>>> so that if the computer
>>>> holding it is destroyed either deliberately or by some natural event
>>>> (Iceland gets volcanoes that pop up in unexpected places!), there are
>>>> copies elsewhere in another part of the cloud that can be accessed to
>>>> restore the original data?
>>>
>>> The term "cloud" is a bit nebulous (yeah, I know :-)
>>
>>Good one!
>
> At first gance I read that as nefarious, not as clever but possibly
> more accurate.

Well, sometimes, but probably not always!