Chameth.com - posts like thinking-more-about-backups, utility-user-stories, why-you-should-be-using-https but not sense-api

Thinking more about backups

2025-11-01T00:00:00Z

The Backblaze logo

Almost a year ago I wrote about how I do backups with Restic and Hetzner. That system has been ticking along well ever since, but recently I had some… thoughts. These backups are all well and good if I accidentally delete a file, or a database gets corrupted, or something, but there are two glaring issues:

Firstly, I’m backing up my Hetzner server to Hetzner cloud storage. If something happens to Hetzner — or my Hetzner account — then all my eggs go down with that basket. Obviously Hetzner are a big organisation and aren’t likely to just vanish overnight, but I’m less confident about my account. Could a false abuse report get it suspended? What if the UK passes even more dumb laws and Hetzner decide it’s easier just to not do business with people here? This is the same sort of concern I have about Google accounts: if you have half of your life in Google Drive and Google Mail, what happens if you comment on a YouTube video, get flagged by an AI moderation process, and your account gets suspended? It’s probably not very likely, but these are things my brain likes to dwell on.

Secondly, the credentials to access the backups sit on each machine that is backed up. If someone malicious gained access to the machine, they’d also have access to delete or tamper with all the backups. It feels a little silly that the same attack could take down both the originals and the backups. There’s no way to avoid that with Hetzner’s S3 implementation, as far as I can tell.

Exploring options

I toyed with the idea of making local copies of the backups, but the only way to avoid the same problems would be to keep them offline and do a manual copy every now and then. I didn’t really want to do that, and was concerned that if I did a monthly offline backup then I stood to lose up to a month of data in the worst case.

I then looked around at other S3 providers. Amazon’s glacier offering is tempting due to its very low storage costs, but you pay for that if you ever want to restore anything. There are also lots of weird pricing edge cases around moving data between storage classes, minimum file sizes, and so on. A much better option is Backblaze’s B2 product. Their pricing is much more straight-forward, and they have an interesting feature that’s particularly useful in this case: lifecycle rules. Coupled with the ability to create API keys that don’t have access to delete files (just “hide” them), this allows for what’s effectively an append-only store.

This works more-or-less out of the box with Restic. Joseph Price has a guide that goes into the setup in a bit more depth. Basically, whenever Restic would delete a file (e.g. during a “forget” or “prune” operation), it instead gets hidden and is only deleted when the B2 lifecycle rules decide it should be. I’ve kept the existing Hetzner S3 backups for now, and just added an extra step to the end of my script: a simple restic copy and a restic forget. B2 actually works out cheaper than the Hetzner storage, as they don’t bill you for a minimum of 1TB storage; my current usage is around $3/month. Not a bad price for some extra peace of mind!

Simple backups with Restic and Hetzner Cloud

2024-12-06T00:00:00Z

Restic’s mascot, who’s dual-wielding umbrellas to save you from a rainy day.

I have a confession: for the past few years I’ve not been backing up any of my computers. Everyone knows that you should do backups, but actually getting around to doing it is another story.

Don’t get me wrong: most of my important things are “backed up” by virtue of being committed to remote git repositories, or attached to e-mails, or re-obtainable from the original source, and so on. I don’t think any machine failing completely would be a disaster for me, but it would certainly be a pain.

This week I finally got around to doing something, and it ended up being a lot more straight forward than my previous forays into backup-land.

Restic

After soliciting a few opinions, the choice of backup software came down to either Borg or Restic. I’m pretty sure either would have done what I want, but I leaned towards Restic for a few reasons: it has a more informative website, it’s written in Go rather than Python¹, and Borg seems to be transitioning between major releases at the moment².

The way Restic works is pretty simple: you initialise a ‘repository’, and can then call restic backup /some/path and it’ll get backed up to the repository. Restic handles keeping different backups separate, and only sending data that’s changed, and deduplicating, and so on. You basically point it at a thing you don’t want to lose, and it sorts it out for you. Perfect.

There are equally straight-forward commands for removing old snapshots (restic forget) and verifying backups (restic check). One of the nice things about modern backup solutions is they support a whole range of backends. I was originally going to spin up a small VPS to host my backups, but noticed that Restic supported S3-compatible stores…

Hetzner Cloud Object Storage

I host my servers with Hetzner, and was going to use them to spin up a VPS as well. Despite the “Cloud” branding on a bunch of products, they offer reasonable prices and good service. A couple of months ago, they started offering S3-compatible object storage.

The pricing isn’t totally straight forward, but for continuous use the “free quota” amounts to 1TB of storage and 1TB of egress a month. Ingress is free, as is traffic within the eu-central region (where all my servers are). That quota is only awarded when you pay the “base price”, though, which is €4.99 a month. So basically it’s €5 a month for 1TB of storage and enough egress to fully restore every single byte. That’s better value than any VPS I can find, much cheaper than Amazon S3, and about the same as Backblaze B2.

Getting them to work together

Now you’d think making the tool that supports S3-compatible object storage work with your S3-compatible object storage would be easy, right? Well not quite. The library Restic uses to deal with S3 backends has some strange logic for figuring out the bucket name given a URL. It doesn’t quite seem to work right, though…

Hetzner buckets have URLs like s3://bucketname.hel1.your-objectstorage.com³, but just passing that to Restic gives an error that the bucket is not specified. The docs mention there’s an advanced option to make it use the virtual host for the bucket name: -o s3.bucket-lookup=dns. But that… also doesn’t work. What I ended up doing was specifying the URL as s3://hel1.your-objectstorage.com/bucketname, and also passing in the dns option. The library then seems to muddle its way back to a real, working URL. I’m not sure why it works like this: maybe it’s just a weird aspect of S3 that I’m oblivious to?

The next fun part is that you can configure Restic entirely by using environment variables, except for that -o s3.bucket-lookup=dns argument. That has to go on the command line. I ended up making a little wrapper script to invoke Restic correctly:

#!/bin/sh

# The password restic will use to encrypt your data. You should generate
# something nice and secure.
export RESTIC_PASSWORD=repo-password

# The path to the repository where restic will save the backup. In our case
# this takes the form `s3:<endpoint>/<bucket>`. Your endpoint might be different
# to mine depending on the region your bucket is in.
export RESTIC_REPOSITORY=s3:hel1.your-objectstorage.com/bucket-name

# The access and secret key generated in the 'S3 credentials' section of the
# Hetzner Cloud Console
export AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID=hetzner-access-key-id
export AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY=hetzner-access-key

# Pass any arguments on to the restic command, along with the magic
# `s3.bucket-lookup` option we need to resolve the S3 URL properly.
exec restic -o s3.bucket-lookup=dns "$@"

Then in the backup script I just alias restic to use the script:

#!/bin/bash

set -eu

# This means any time we use `restic` below, we'll actually execute our special
# script which supplies all the env vars and arguments needed to find the
# repository. Make sure the path matches where you saved the script!
alias restic='~/.bin/restic'

# Actually do the backup. Each directory in the list below will be backed up
# separately.
dirs=(
	"/some/path/to/backup/"
	"/some/other/path/"
)
for i in "${dirs[@]}" 
do
	echo $i
	(cd $i && restic --verbose backup .)
done

# Prune our snapshots. You can tweak the numbers here. Run with `--dry-run` to
# see what effect any changes would have before actually committing to them. 
restic forget --keep-daily 7 --keep-weekly 10 --keep-monthly 24 --keep-yearly 10

The only other notable thing here is that the script changes into the directory to be backed up. If you give Restic an absolute path, it will create a new snapshot if the metadata of any folder in the path changes, which is not what I want.

If it wasn’t for the S3 URL issues, the whole thing would’ve probably taken me about half an hour. That’s including setting up the object storage, installing Restic, and so on. It’s painfully easy. Why didn’t I do this three years ago?!

Addendum: a step-by-step guide

If you want to do this yourself, here’s a quick step-by-step guide:

Log in to the Hetzner Cloud Console, and create a project.
On the “Object Storage” tab, create a new bucket. Note the name and the endpoint.
On the “Security” tab, go to “S3 Credentials” and generate new credentials. Note down the access key and the secret key.
Copy the first shell script above, fill in the password (you can pick!), endpoint, bucket name, access key and secret key.
Run the script with the init argument (e.g. ~/.bin/restic init). This will create a new repository, and only needs to be done once even if you backup multiple machines.
Copy the second shell script above, making sure the restic alias points at the script you saved in step 4. Change the list of directories to whatever you want to backup.
Schedule the script to be run automatically, using crontab or systemd timers or however you prefer.

To check everything is working, you can use the snapshots subcommand to see a list of saved snapshots. You might also want to try to restore a snapshot using the restore subcommand.

I’m not trying to be a language snob, but given the choice between two otherwise equal projects one in Go and one in Python, I’ll take the Go one. I know I’m not going to have weird library issues down the line, and I’m much more comfortable rummaging around the source. ↩︎
With a “Don’t use this in production!” notice on the shiny new version. ↩︎
Aside: I really hate URLs like that. What is with the trend for completely generic domains divorced from the service they’re a part of? ↩︎

On the utility of user stories

2021-10-16T00:00:00Z

User stories are a staple of most agile methodologies. You’d be hard-pressed to find an experienced software developer that’s not come across them at some point in their career. In case you haven’t, they look something like this:

As a frequent customer,
I want to be able to browse my previous orders,
So that I can quickly re-order products.

They provide a persona (in this case “a frequent customer”), a goal (“browse my previous orders”) and a reason (“so that I can quickly re-order products”). This fictitious user story would probably rank among one of the better ones I’ve seen. More typically you end up with something like:

As a user,
I want to be able to login,
So that I can browse while logged in.

This doesn’t really provide a persona or any proper reasoning. It’s just a straight-forward task pretending to be a user story. If this is written in an issue then it provides no extra information over one that simply says “Allow users to login”. In fact, because it’s expressed so awkwardly I’d argue that it’s worse.

This kind of task-disguised-as-a-user-story problem becomes more obvious when people try to write technical tasks in the same way:

As a developer,
I want to refactor the JobFactory,
So that I can work with it more efficiently in the future.

This just says “Refactor the JobFactory”. If you wrote that in a ticket you’d probably feel bad for not describing it very well, but somehow when it’s dressed up as a user story it feels more valuable.

Does the user really want that?

One thing that really irks me about user stories is that it lets you twist your business objectives into sounding like they’re the user’s idea: the story becomes a post-hoc justification for a task you decided was required.

Say you’re making a mobile app for an online book store, and your team for whatever reason has a target of increasing the number of users who view the daily book-of-the-day offer. Maybe you do some interviews and users tell you they forget to check in each day to see what the offer is. How can you funnel more users there?

As a mobile app user,
I want to receive a push notification whenever a new book-of-the-day is available,
So that I have the chance to buy the book.

Some users probably do want such a thing, but I’d argue the vast majority of them do not. Imagine if every app on your phone alerted you whenever there was a new deal, or popped up a dialog whenever you went near a physical shop they had vouchers for…

Obviously in the cold reality of capitalism businesses make money by doing things not strictly in the interests of users¹. When written up like this it becomes so painfully disingenuous, though. Despite writing a user story that starts with the words “As a user”, you’re not really putting yourself in the user’s shoes.

Who even is the user?

One of the big benefits of user stories comes from using personas to describe users. It’s also one of the things that’s rarely actually done, at least in my experience. Looking at Google Trends you can see the rise of searches for “user story” as agile slowly takes over the world, but the movement in searches about personas is very slight:

Graph showing relative search frequency for user stories against user personas

A lot of the time stories are just written with “As a user”, or have some adjectives tacked on to the start (“as a mobile user”, “as a logged-in user”). The best I’ve ever seen in the wild was specifying the class of user like in the example at the start: “as a frequent customer”, or “as a visually impaired user”.

The problem with using these classes is it requires you to come up with them when you’re writing the story. Maybe one day you think about visually impaired users, but the next you don’t. Maybe Bob thinks about certain classes of users, but Alice concentrates on different ones.

The ideal way to solve this is to come up with personas that all the team understand. For example:

Kiera is addicted to books. She reads across genres, and often buys books to gift to her friends and family. She has piles and piles of books to read, but that doesn’t stop her ordering more if she sees a good deal. She likes receiving new books almost as much as reading them, and opts for the fastest delivery available.
Sharon is a slow, methodical reader. She buys one book at a time when she’s close to finishing her current one, and gifts or resells her old books. She almost exclusively reads Science Fiction, and will generally read complete series from start to finish. She’s short-sighted and often struggles when using mobile phones or computers.

You’d probably want 2-4 personas that collectively represent most facets of your userbase. They can be a lot more fleshed out than these - if you search for example user personas you’ll find many beautifully presented examples that have complete backgrounds including hobbies, education levels, and so on. Even with this minimal level of detail, though, I’d argue they’re more useful than just writing things in a standard user story form.

Thinking back to the story about push notifications, writing it to use one of these two personas forces you to think about the trade-offs involved. Kiera probably would like a notification, but it would annoy and possibly confuse Sharon. This then leads you down the path of considering how to accommodate both types of user — maybe adding it as an option, or doing some fancy machine learning, etc. The conversation is now focused around the users, rather than steamrolling over them to reach a business objective.

You’re holding it wrong

The problems I’ve described are not a problem with user stories per se, but rather common issues with how they’re used. But there’s only so many times you can tell people they’re holding a tool wrong before you have to accept that maybe the tool was badly designed.

Considering features from the perspective of multiple personas is the single best thing you can possibly do to ensure you’re providing value to your users. You don’t even need to write things in the typical user story style to benefit from this.

Tacking “As a user,” to the start of all your JIRA tickets isn’t being agile, and isn’t good for users, even if it lets you tick a box somewhere. In some cases this lip-service to users is actively detrimental to them. We should be valuing users and personas over stilted templates and check-box exercises (remind you of anything?).

As a user, I want to pay more money for the things that I buy, so that the company’s CEO can afford to go to space. ↩︎

Why you should be using HTTPS

2016-06-17T00:00:00Z

The EFF’s HTTPS Everywhere logo

One of my favourite hobbyhorses recently has been the use of HTTPS, or lack thereof. HTTPS is the thing that makes the little padlock appear in your browser, and has existed for over 20 years. In the past, that little padlock was the exclusive preserve of banks and other ‘high security’ establishments; over time its use has gradually expanded to most (but not all) websites that handle user information, and the time is now right for it to become ubiquitous.

Why use HTTPS?

There are numerous advantages to using HTTPS, both for the users of a website and for the operator:

Privacy

The most obvious advantage is that HTTPS gives your users additional privacy. An insecure (HTTP) request can potentially be read by anyone on the same network, or the network operators, or anyone who happens to operate a network along the path between the user and the server.

Users on shared WiFi networks (such as those in coffee shops, hotels, or offices) are particularly vulnerable to passive sniffing by anyone else on that network. If the network is open (as is frequently the case) then anyone in radio range can see exactly what the user is up to.

Integrity

HTTPS also helps to maintain the integrity of your site. With a plain HTTP request, there’s nothing to stop anyone in between the server and the user from modifying the content of the request or the response. This is a frequent tactic used by annoying WiFi gateways (such as the ones you’d find in a hotel), dubious ISPs who want to serve you extra adverts, or just plain old nefarious attackers.

If you’re trying to convey some kind of information to users (and if you aren’t, why exactly are you running a website again?) it seems beneficial to both you and them if the information arrives as you intended, rather than in a modified form due to someone or something tampering with it.

Security

If your website has any kind of authentication, or session identifiers, it becomes extremely vulnerable to an attacker monitoring the traffic and stealing the credentials. This was starkly demonstrated in 2010 when Firesheep was released. This tool allowed anyone to quickly and automatically hijack social media accounts of anyone on the same network who was using HTTP to access them.

Even if your login pages are served over HTTPS, if you send a single session ID cookie over HTTP (such as a page you decided wasn’t particularly ‘important’) then an attacker can probably spoof the user’s session and gain full access to their account. Again, in the case of open WiFi networks that could be anyone in radio range.

Search engine rankings

Some search engines use HTTPS as a signal in their ranking algorithms. Google announced in 2004 that it was using the presence of HTTPS as a small positive signal, but that it may strengthen that signal over time as more and more websites switch to using a secure transport. It’s not unthinkable that at some point in the future there will be HTTPS-only search engines.

But… But… But…

There are lots of excuses for not implementing HTTPS. Most of them are either misguided or outdated.

It’s too expensive and/or complicated

In the past, getting HTTPS certificates was a pain. A number of free suppliers have existed for a while but the process for getting their certificates wasn’t particularly straight forward, and many imposed arbitrary restrictions on the certificate parameters. Even once you had the certificate, you had to fiddle about with your HTTP server configuration to make it work, remember to manually get a new certificate when the old one expired, and lots of other annoying busywork.

With the arrival of Let’s Encrypt, all that changed. You can retrieve and deploy a free HTTPS certificate with two or three commands. Renewal can be handled completely automatically with a single command executed by cron.

There’s no point; nothing on my site is sensitive

You might not think your content warrants privacy, but can you speak for everyone who accesses it? Even content that seems mundane to you — such as travel advice, or technical writing — could be used to build up a profile of a user. If an attacker is monitoring traffic in a coffee shop and sees a user looking at travel advice and weather forecasts for a foreign country, he could use that information to plan a burglary knowing that the user will be away. Similarly, some content which is perfectly mundane to you may actually be very sensitive in other countries with repressive governments. HTTPS makes it much harder for these people to snoop on traffic.

From another angle, if you’re offering any kind of information, instructions, or especially file downloads, there’s a severe risk to users if the content is modified on its way to them. An evil sysadmin could rewrite your travel advice to suggest visiting the local drug dealer’s hangout, or replace your download with a malware-infested version.

HTTPS is slower, uses more resources, etc

Back in 1995 this might have been a valid argument. Enabling HTTPS on a modern server will make an almost negligible difference to performance. If you also enable HTTP/2 (which most implementations only support over HTTPS), it’s likely to actually use fewer resources, and result in a faster, smoother experience for your users. HTTP/2 was designed to work with HTTPS, and designed with modern requirements and networking techniques in mind.

CloudFlare have an excellent demonstration of the benefits of HTTP/2, and it can show speed improvements of 2-3x in a typical environment. On top of being faster, HTTP/2 uses fewer connections which results in less resource overhead on both the server and the client.

So what are you waiting for?

If you run a website and aren’t using HTTPS, give it a try.