|
| 1 | +--- |
| 2 | +layout: post |
| 3 | +title: "Building a Scalable Data Warehouse Backup System with AWS" |
| 4 | +tags: |
| 5 | + - Data-warehouse |
| 6 | + - Terraform |
| 7 | + - AWS |
| 8 | + - Deltalake |
| 9 | + - Backup |
| 10 | +team: Core Infrastructure |
| 11 | +author: Oleh Motrunych |
| 12 | +--- |
| 13 | + |
| 14 | +We designed and implemented a scalable, cost-optimized backup system for S3 data warehouses that runs automatically on a monthly schedule. The system handles petabytes of data across multiple databases and uses a hybrid approach: AWS Lambda for small workloads and ECS Fargate for larger ones. |
| 15 | +At its core, the pipeline performs incremental backups — copying only new or changed parquet files while always preserving delta logs — dramatically reducing costs and runtime compared to full backups. Data is validated through S3 Inventory manifests, processed in parallel, and stored in Glacier for long-term retention. |
| 16 | +To avoid data loss and reduce storage costs, we also implemented a safe deletion workflow. Files older than 90 days, successfully backed up, and no longer present in the source are tagged for lifecycle-based cleanup instead of being deleted immediately. |
| 17 | +This approach ensures reliability, efficiency, and safety: backups scale seamlessly from small to massive datasets, compute resources are right-sized, and storage is continuously optimized. |
| 18 | + |
| 19 | + |
| 20 | + |
| 21 | +--- |
| 22 | + |
| 23 | +### Our old approach had problems: |
| 24 | + |
| 25 | +- Copying over the same files all the time – not effective from a cost perspective |
| 26 | +- Timeouts when manifests were too large for Lambda |
| 27 | +- Redundant backups inflating storage cost |
| 28 | +- Orphaned files piling up without clean deletion |
| 29 | + |
| 30 | +--- |
| 31 | + |
| 32 | +### We needed a systematic, automated, and cost-effective way to: |
| 33 | + |
| 34 | +- Run monthly backups across all databases |
| 35 | +- Scale from small jobs to massive datasets |
| 36 | +- Handle incremental changes instead of full copies |
| 37 | +- Safely clean up old data without risk of data loss |
| 38 | + |
| 39 | +--- |
| 40 | + |
| 41 | +### The Design at a Glance |
| 42 | + |
| 43 | +We built a hybrid backup architecture on AWS primitives: |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +- Step Functions – orchestrates the workflow |
| 46 | +- Lambda – lightweight jobs for small manifests |
| 47 | +- ECS Fargate – heavy jobs with no timeout constraints |
| 48 | +- S3 + S3 Batch Ops – storage and bulk copy/delete operations |
| 49 | +- EventBridge – monthly scheduler |
| 50 | +- Glue, CloudWatch, Secrets Manager – reporting, monitoring, secure keys |
| 51 | +- IAM – access and roles |
| 52 | + |
| 53 | +The core idea: Do not copy file what are already in back up and copy over always delta log, Small manifests run in Lambda, big ones in ECS. |
| 54 | + |
| 55 | +--- |
| 56 | + |
| 57 | +### How It Works |
| 58 | + |
| 59 | +1. **Database Discovery** |
| 60 | + |
| 61 | + Parse S3 Inventory manifests |
| 62 | + Identify database prefixes |
| 63 | + Queue for processing (up to 40 in parallel) |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | +2. **Manifest Validation** |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | + Before we touch data, we validate: |
| 68 | + - JSON structure |
| 69 | + - All CSV parts present |
| 70 | + - File counts + checksums match |
| 71 | + If incomplete → wait up to 30 minutes before retry |
| 72 | + |
| 73 | +3. **Routing by Size** |
| 74 | + |
| 75 | + - ≤25 files → Lambda (15 minutes, 5GB) |
| 76 | + - 25 files → ECS Fargate (16GB RAM, 4 vCPUs, unlimited runtime) |
| 77 | + |
| 78 | +4. **Incremental Backup Logic** |
| 79 | + |
| 80 | + - Load exclusion set from last backup |
| 81 | + - Always include delta logs |
| 82 | + - Only back up parquet files not yet in backup |
| 83 | + - Ignore non-STANDARD storage classes (we use Intelligent-Tiering; over time files can go to Glacier and we don’t want to touch them) |
| 84 | + - Process CSVs in parallel (20 workers) |
| 85 | + - Emit new manifest + checksum for integrity |
| 86 | + |
| 87 | +5. **Copying Files** |
| 88 | + |
| 89 | + - Feed manifests into S3 Batch Operations |
| 90 | + - Copy objects into Glacier storage |
| 91 | + |
| 92 | +6. **Safe Deletion** |
| 93 | + |
| 94 | + - Compare current inventory vs. incremental manifests |
| 95 | + - Identify parquet files that: |
| 96 | + - Were backed up successfully |
| 97 | + - No longer exist in source |
| 98 | + - Are older than 90 days |
| 99 | + - Tag them for deletion instead of deleting immediately |
| 100 | + - Deletion is performed using S3 lifecycle configuration for cost-optimized deletion |
| 101 | + - Tags include timestamps for rollback + audit |
| 102 | + |
| 103 | +--- |
| 104 | + |
| 105 | +### Error Handling & Resilience |
| 106 | + |
| 107 | +- Retries with exponential backoff + jitter |
| 108 | +- Strict validation before deletes |
| 109 | +- Exclusion lists ensure delta logs are never deleted |
| 110 | +- ECS tasks run in private subnets with VPC endpoints |
| 111 | + |
| 112 | +--- |
| 113 | + |
| 114 | +### Cost & Performance Gains |
| 115 | + |
| 116 | +- Incremental logic = no redundant transfers |
| 117 | +- Lifecycle rules = backups → Glacier, old ones cleaned |
| 118 | +- Size-based routing = Lambda for cheap jobs, ECS for heavy jobs |
| 119 | +- Parallelism = 20 CSV workers per manifest, 40 DBs at once |
| 120 | + |
| 121 | +--- |
| 122 | + |
| 123 | +### Lessons Learned |
| 124 | + |
| 125 | +- Always validate manifests before processing |
| 126 | +- Never delete immediately → tagging first saved us money |
| 127 | +- Thresholds matter: 25 files was our sweet spot |
| 128 | +- CloudWatch + Slack reports gave us visibility we didn’t have before |
| 129 | + |
| 130 | +--- |
| 131 | + |
| 132 | +### Conclusion |
| 133 | + |
| 134 | +By combining Lambda, ECS Fargate, and S3 Batch Ops, we’ve built a resilient backup system that scales from small to massive datasets. Instead of repeatedly copying the same files, the system now performs truly incremental backups — capturing only new or changed parquet files while always preserving delta logs. This not only minimizes costs but also dramatically reduces runtime. |
| 135 | + |
| 136 | +Our safe deletion workflow ensures that stale data is removed without risk, using lifecycle-based cleanup rather than immediate deletion. Together, these design choices give us reliable backups, efficient scaling, and continuous optimization of storage. What used to be expensive, error-prone, and manual is now automated, predictable, and cost-effective. |
0 commit comments