Yep. You'd need some number of backup drives to deal make certain that one is always off site. In a simple scenario, 3 would work. Two would be at the "office" while one would remain at "home" as you rotate them in and out. (I think firewire/USB is good solution for this. 30GB USB drives go for about $170 retail and their hot-swappable of course...)
Now as Dustin points out, if their is a virus propogation, you may be better off with tapes and a more detailed policy. But this is a cost/convenience tradeoff -- there are not alot of inexpensive multi-gigabyte backup solutions out there. On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:38:33AM -0600, Alvaro Zuniga wrote: > I feel dummy, I never really consider the disaster situation. I guess > removable disks and have them out of the complex is best. > The main concern with this company is the data in case that something > happens to the OSs and the computers are unbootable. They already had a > problem but I was able to restore everything and decided to have a > secondary drive just to make it easier in the future if the problem > arises once again. I think the niece of the owner plays with his > computer from time to time. Isn't that nice? > I will look forward to setup some kind of removable drive if they want > the expense and your "protecting yourself about one kind of related > incident" comment will be a good argument and will save my butt in the > future if they do not think is necessary. > > thanks for the help, > > Alvaro > > > On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 08:17, Dustin Puryear wrote: > > At 01:07 AM 11/18/2002 -0600, you wrote: > > >On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 19:02, Dustin Puryear wrote: > > > > At 12:17 AM 11/15/2002 -0600, you wrote: > > > > A drive in another computer is not a good backup solution. > > > > > > > > > > >I did not mean on another computer, in the same computer. > > > > > >What would be the problem of backing up in another computer. There is > > >this office that has two computers that need backup service. I was going > > >to put a drive in one of them and using windows networking have it > > >shared on the other computer. The backup is for files and a few access > > >databases, probably no more than 100megs. The process needs to be > > >automatic. Do you see a problem there? > > > > Assume there is a disaster (ie., lightning, fire). Why would one machine > > make it and the other not? Now, if you just worry about losing data due to > > deletions and changes made in applications, then having several backups on > > another disk isn't a bad idea. But then you are only protecting yourself > > from one type of backup-related incident. > > > > > > --- > > Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Puryear Information Technology > > Windows, UNIX, and IT Consulting > > http://www.puryear-it.com > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > General mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://oxygen.nocdirect.com/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://oxygen.nocdirect.com/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net -- Scott Harney<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "...and one script to rule them all."
