Just to clarify; Off-site backups aren't done for the cost savings (usually a monthly fee is involved). It is to entirely physically disassociate that backup from your main backup by as big of a distance as is possible. That way if a mega disaster hits your area, your data is safe somewhere far away. Not to mention hosted space usually comes with far higher level of integrity than most any home solution. A friend of mine had his USB drive knocked off his desk yesterday and lost all 500GB of the data on it.
It may take days or even weeks of background transfer on a slower link to remote backup 100s of GB of data, but consider the time it takes to do that versus the time/effort it takes to build of that much data of value in the first place. --Sean On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:35 PM, George Ou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > You're changing the subject Bob. I didn't say I liked the Time Warner 40GB > plan, in fact I don't like it at all. I merely said that any talk of > people > not willing to download security updates is just silly. > > That said, backing up more than 40 GBs of data remotely over any broadband > or WAN connection (excluding 20/20 FiOS or better) isn't really practical > even without the usage caps. You're always going to be better off with a > 500 GB USB 2.0 drive that you can get for $100 which typically operate at > 240 Mbps. > > > George > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Frankston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:11 PM > To: 'George Ou'; 'Lauren Weinstein'; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ NNSquad ] Re: Effects of bandwidth restrictions (from IP) > > But if I want to recover the 130GB I have backed up remotely that means I > need to wait over three months? > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad <nnsquad-bounces%2Bnnsquad>= > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > George Ou > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 18:31 > To: 'Lauren Weinstein'; [email protected] > Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Effects of bandwidth restrictions (from IP) > > This is starting to get really silly. We're looking at about 40 MBs for > Windows update per month which is 1000 smaller than Time Warner's 40GB cap. > > [ Don't fail to account (no pun intended) for the psychological > aspects of caps. In many areas of life -- not just > technology-related ones -- it's long been recognized that people > do not necessarily react to perceived limits in completely > logical ways. It is not at all unreasonable to postulate that > many persons will cut back on what they consider to be > "expendable" downloads (e.g. routine OS and application updates) > rather than reduce their movie downloading. This is likely to > be true even when the combination of both wouldn't actually > exceed the cap. All manner of unanticipated consequences likely > lurk with bandwidth caps being imposed on previously "unmetered" > services. > > -- Lauren Weinstein > NNSquad Moderator ] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou <nnsquad-bounces%2Bgeorge_ou>= > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Lauren Weinstein > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 3:16 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [ NNSquad ] Effects of bandwidth restrictions (from IP) > > > ------- Forwarded Message > > From: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "ip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [IP] bandwidth restrictions redux > Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:57:12 -0400 > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: DV Henkel-Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: October 29, 2008 4:17:07 PM EDT > To: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: bandwidth restrictions redux > > Since bandwidth restrictions have started coming into place I have > seen comments from people on the net saying that they cannot or will > not download software updates because of their provider's bandwidth > cap. Not from people complaining politically but just ordinary users > (e.g. see various comments on the macintouch site). I presume this > will increase the chance of security patches not being downloaded. > > Since it's an ill wind that blows no good I guess I've also seen the > upside: people complaining about heavy web pages and the use of > flash. Really, if bandwidth caps eliminate flash, can we really > complain? > > > > > - ------------------------------------------- > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > ------- End of Forwarded Message > > > > > -- Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and think what nobody else has thought.
