On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 11:08:14PM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > I agree that 120GB (as opposed to 20GB, as I thought before) suggest a > tape solution. Still, the large up-front cost of the tape drive, coupled > with the cost of each tape, make a hard disk solution seem appealing.
I like a combination of mirroring and other backup. If you make a daily mirror to a spare server in a period of low activity, then you have 24 hours to do the backup. Tape is much nicer than DVD. Single layer DVDs are reasonbly reliable, but 120 gig sure needs a lot of them. Dual layers are better, but the media are not commonly available (you can't run out to office depot if you need a box or two) and Linux support IMHO sucks. You need to make an ISO image of the data before you burn it. This means 3 passes through the data, maybe 4. (1 to mirror it, 2 to ISO it, 3 to burn it, 4 to verify it if you are paranoid). Tape is much better, tape is faster, and single pass only as it reads and parity checks the tape as it is written. Although they are about $50 a tape, DLT 400 (200 gig) tapes work well and are archival. Add in a changer and you can live for a week with no intervention. If it is still available HP had a wonderful backup package. The price varied considerably depending upon whether you had a Windows version or the Unix version. What counted for the price was the operating system the scheduler ran on. Both versions supported Linux clients to back up and do the tape I/O. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 The trouble with being a futurist is that when people get around to believing you, it's too late. We lost. Google 2,000,000:Hams 0. ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
