Blueprint repository backups

What does this MR do?

Adds repository backups architecture blueprint.

Related issues

Author's checklist

• Optional. Consider taking the GitLab Technical Writing Fundamentals course.
• Follow the:
  • Documentation process.
  • Documentation guidelines.
  • Style Guide.
• If you're adding or changing the main heading of the page (H1), ensure that the product tier badge is added.
• If you are a GitLab team member, request a review based on:
  • The documentation page's metadata.
  • The associated Technical Writer.

If you are a GitLab team member and only adding documentation, do not add any of the following labels:

• ~"frontend"
• ~"backend"
• ~"type::bug"
• ~"database"

These labels cause the MR to be added to code verification QA issues.

Reviewer's checklist

Documentation-related MRs should be reviewed by a Technical Writer for a non-blocking review, based on Documentation Guidelines and the Style Guide.

If you aren't sure which tech writer to ask, use roulette or ask in the #docs Slack channel.

• If the content requires it, ensure the information is reviewed by a subject matter expert.
• Technical writer review items:
  • Ensure docs metadata is present and up-to-date.
  • Ensure the appropriate labels are added to this MR.
  • Ensure a release milestone is set.
  • If relevant to this MR, ensure content topic type principles are in use, including:
    • The headings should be something you'd do a Google search for. Instead of Default behavior, say something like Default behavior when you close an issue.
    • The headings (other than the page title) should be active. Instead of Configuring GDK, say something like Configure GDK.
    • Any task steps should be written as a numbered list.
    • If the content still needs to be edited for topic types, you can create a follow-up issue with the docs-technical-debt label.
• Review by assigned maintainer, who can always request/require the reviews above. Maintainer's review can occur before or after a technical writer review.

added docsimprovement documentation group::gitalygit maintenancerefactor typemaintenance labels

assigned to @proglottis

added devopssystems sectioncore platform labels

added Architecture Evolution Blueprint label

	2 Warnings
	47a02cd9: The commit subject must not end with a period. For more information, take a look at our Commit message guidelines.
	This merge request does not refer to an existing milestone.

	2 Messages
	This merge request requires a review from an Architecture Evolution Coach.
	This merge request adds or changes documentation files. A review from the Technical Writing team before you merge is recommended. Reviews can happen after you merge.

Architecture Evolution Review

This merge request requires a review from an Architecture Evolution Coach.

Following files, that may require the additional review, have been changed:

• doc/architecture/blueprints/repository_backups/index.md

Documentation review

The following files require a review from a technical writer:

• doc/architecture/blueprints/repository_backups/index.md (Link to current live version)

The review does not need to block merging this merge request. See the:

• Metadata for the *.md files that you've changed. The first few lines of each *.md file identify the stage and group most closely associated with your docs change.
• The Technical Writer assigned for that stage and group.
• Documentation workflows for information on when to assign a merge request for review.

If needed, you can retry the danger-review job that generated this comment.

Generated by Danger

added docs-only label

requested review from @DylanGriffith

@proglottis this seems like an important improvement. I had some ideas come to mind while reading it but I think the general idea makes a tonne of sense to me. I definitely got 2 clear conclusions from this:

1. Running a rake task that downloads all repositories locally to do a backup is hugely inefficient and could never work at our scale
2. Running naive cloud provided snapshots of the disks leaves a big opportunity for Gitaly specific optimizations

removed review request for @DylanGriffith

@proglottis as for next steps I think the main thing is to find some domain experts (PM and Engineer) to review the plan if you feel like you have all the context you need in there for now.

Setting label group::gitalygit based on @proglottis's group.

Setting label group::gitalygit based on @proglottis's group.

added groupgitaly label

added 1 commit

• 5aa08b0d - Draft 2 updates. Expanding summary.

Compare with previous version