This is sensible, but one problem with this is developing "blindness" for messages you receive every day. For some recurring tasks you can automate a bit further. Instead of receiving a success message every day, receive a failure message the first day there's an absence of success message. A number of tools and services exist for setting this up, one is linked in my HN profile (shameless plug ;-)
This can be an issue, I do get lazy about checking them when I'm busy.
The next step will be to automate checking them a bit more, rather than stopping the positive messages. A simple script that for the mail example logs in via POP/IMAP, checks for the last notification and checks the relevant timestamps. Similar for other services (is the last commit in the repo from more than 24 hours ago?). Then I get a simple "all OK" or not. I still have to run the script, perhaps hooking it to CGI and setting it to my browser home page to further remove my laziness from the equation, but I don't want to just be told when something is wrong as I'll never really trust that something going wrong won't block warning messages - I want to make checking as easy as possible though.
I may play with your service and add it as a secondary set of checks though!
Now that I'm developing email stuff I get all the time the existential crisis of "how to I make sure my testing and alerting infrastructure is working?"
Really, how can you be sure your restoration tests are running correctly and their messages get all the way to you?
I think I'll add periodic positive messages for my restoration procedures. Stuff like (if success and day % 23 == 0 then email_something). Still doesn't guarantee the test is correct.
I get a daily message, so if I know if things aren't getting sent or getting through. I've been wary of setting up anything that only sends problem messages because regularly getting the "all OK" messages proves that at least that part of the infrastructure is working.
Getting a message must be mostly a surprise. One daily message is OK for me, but if so it may be good to tell about more than a backup. A daily digest of "everything is up and running" may indeed be something very nice to have.
And how do you ensure a team will always have someone surprised not to get a daily message? Maybe sending for may people, or requiring some acknowledge, and creating a warning over the warning channel if there isn't one. (And you certainly aren't going to send those positive messages over the warning channel, because it requires a completely different kind of action.)
> And how do you ensure a team will always have someone surprised not to get a daily message?
For a team you have a management problem not a technical one! Somebody needs to be responsible for it in the end, plain and simple.
On a less authoritarian note a technical helper might perhaps be to have a screen, always on, showing a dashboard of statuses, where everyone can see it? Make it beep incessantly when a new warning arrives until someone acknowledges it. If you acknowledge a message either deal with it (if you can) or notify whoever needs to be told so they can take action.
People will still sometimes ignore or miss the warnings. Nothing and no one is perfect.
But I'm only dealing with my own collection of personal data and projects here so it isn't that scale of problem - at work I used to be responsible for infrastructure as well as my actual job but we no longer operate at a scale where that is at all practical so I have to trust someone else is dealing with it (though I'm not that trusting I do sometimes take time out to check things myself where I have access).
That's awesome. I've always tested my backups by having shitty, cheap servers so bad that restoring from backup happens about once every few months.
Going to an automated restoration test is a great idea, though also a lot of work for most people.
Just checking, manually or automatically that your backups are occurring and are of a reasonable size is probably sufficient for most operations and would have caught most if not every case in the GitLab instance.
This is where automated testing helps. My mail server has a sister VM out in the wild that once a day picks up the latest backup from the offsite-online backups and restores it, sending me a copy of the last message received according to the data in that backup. If I don't get the message, restoring the backup failed. If the message looks too old then making or transferring the backup failed.
My source control services and static web servers do something similar. None of the shadow copies are available to the world, though I can see them via VPN to perform manual check occasionally and if something nasty happens they are only a few firewall and routing rules away from being used as DR sites (they are slower as in their normal just-testing-the-backups operation they don't need nearly the same resources as the live copies, but slow is better than no!).
This won't catch everything of course, but it catches many things that not doing it would not. The time spent maintaining the automation (which itself could have faults of course) is time well spent if done intelligently. For a system as large in scale as GitLabs then a full restore daily is probably not practical so a more selective heuristic will need to be chosen if you are operating at such a scale. My arrangement still needs some manual checking and sometimes I'm too busy or just forget, so again it isn't perfect, but the risk of making it more clever and inviting failure that way is at this point worse than the risk of my being lazy at exactly the wrong time.
One thing my arrangement doesn't test is point-in-time restores (because sometimes the problem happened last week, so last night's backup is no use) but there is a limit to how much you can practically do.
> The problem of restoring non-existing backups should be treated as a more serious problem in our industry
It is by people that care about it, but not enough people care, and too many people see the resources needed to get it right as an expense rather than an investment for future mental health.
It isn't just non-existent backups. Any backup arrangement could be subject to corruption either through hardware fault, process fault, or deliberate action (the old "they hacked us and took out our backups too" - I really must get around to publishing my notes on soft-offline backups...).
> Let's identify the diseases of this sort in our industry
Apathy mainly.
The people who care most are either naturally paranoid (like me), have lost important data at some point in the past so know the feeling first hand (thankfully not me, though in part to having a backup strategy that worked) or have had to have the difficult conversation with another party (sorry, I can't magic your data back for you, it really is gone) and watch the pitiful expressions as they beg for the impossible.
The only way to enforce the correct due diligence is to make someone responsible for it, it is more a management problem than a technical one because the technical approaches needed pretty much all exist and for the most part are well studies and documented.
Of course to an extent you have to accept reasonable risks. It is usually not practical to do everything that could be done, and understandable human error always needs to be accounted for as do "acts of Murphy". But someone needs to be responsible for deciding what sort of risk to take (by not doing something, or doing something less ideal) rather than them just being taken by general inaction.