Quoting Joel W. Shea via luv-main ([email protected]):
> I'd like to add that a mirror isn't a reliable backup; regardless of
> that mirror being RAID, or scheduled synchronisation.
I'll quote my own bit from 2002:
The topic of data backup herewith returns, like a troublesome data set
— occasioned by my addressing the matter on a mailing list, and again
referring people to your [my friend Karsten Self's] Linux Backups
mini-FAQ. Comments will concern that FAQ and surrounding cosmic truths.
Cosmic truth #1: Part of the reason it's a FAQ topic is that people are
confused about what a backup is, and what it is not.
o redundant storage: E.g., RAID1, RAID5.
o archival storage: E.g., migrating a billed-out project's files from the
company file server to CDRs.
o backup: Technical means to make your data survive Thor hitting your
server with Mjolnir. Or to get back the directory Moriarty deleted from
it last Thursday.
These are _very_ distinct concepts, yet many people have them
hopelessly confused, and call all of them "backup".
A lot of the people with dumb opinions on the subject have no friggin'
clue what it takes to foil Thor and Moriarty: They think quantity one
duplicate copy, stored within Mjolnir distance of the server, and
overwritten every Saturday night with a fresh data set, is "backup".
'Backup Fallacies / Pitfalls' on http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Admin/
--
Cheers, (morganj): 0 is false and 1 is true, correct?
Rick Moen (alec_eso): 1, morganj
[email protected] (morganj): bastard.
McQ! (4x80) -- seen on IRC
_______________________________________________
luv-main mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
