On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Timothy J Massey <tmas...@obscorp.com>wrote:
> Redundancy is a good thing.
>
> (While we're on the subject, I've considered Les' argument that compressed
> files take less space on the disk and are therefore less likely to be
> corrupted before. It's true, but like dedupe errors, it's just *one*
> possible failure--and to me, not a very likely one. It's not one worth
> defending against by *itself*. Having uncompressed files makes, e.g.,
> scanning a badly scrambled filesystem for salvagable data *much* easier.
I've seen orders of magnitude more media errors then filesystem errors. In
fact I can barely recall a filesystem error that was a big problem for fsck
to fix - well except for one case that was really caused by bad RAM where
the file contents would also have been randomly bad.
When it comes to backup, I will almost *always* choose simple over fancy,
> even if fancy gives me other advantages but not additional safety.)
>
Simple to me means that the result fits on one disk which I can raid-mirror,
split, and keep several extra snapshot copies. Compression makes that a lot
easier. And I'd probably go back to an earlier copy instead of groveling
through the live one in the unlikely scenario that the filesystem fails.
Plus, it covers the case of a building disaster with one of the copies
offsite.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
