2010/2/7 Dragos Chiriac <[email protected]>:
>
> Amanda mi se pare mai usor de invatat/folosit. Ambele au o curba de
> invatare destul de abrupta, iti ia ceva pana le intelegi pe bune. Daca
> vrei sa foloseti sistemul de backup ca scula de disaster recovery,
> trebuie sa inveti chiar si mai multe. (E diferenta intre backup si
> disaster recovery).
Chestia asta mi-a adus aminte de citatul urmator:
Everyone hates backups. They are inconvenient. They are costly. Services run
slower—or not at all—when servers are being backed up. On the other hand,
customers love restores. Restores are why SAs perform backups.
[...]
Although the goal is to be able to restore lost data in a timely manner, it
is easy to get caught up in the daily operational work of doing backups and to
forget that restoration is the goal. As evidence, the collective name typically
used for all the equipment and software related to this process is “backup
system.” It should really be called “backup and restore systems” or, possibly
more fittingly, simply the “data restoration system.”
(Limonceli, Hogan & Chalup - "The Practice of System and Network
Administration, 2nd ed." - pg. 619)
Ce vreau sa zic e ca e usor sa uiti ca scopul nr. 1 al unui sistem de
backup e sa recuperezi _repede_ datele de acolo.
PS: Omul n-a pomenit de DR, hai sa nu ne mai laudam ce cuvinte
complicate stim. Si ca sa nu se lase cu injuraturi data viitoare cand
mai vedem, nu mai recomanda raid ca backup ca n-are nici o legatura
(si ce zici tu e o reteta sigura sa-ti scurtezi timpul pana cand vei
avea nevoie de backupul ala).
--
Petre "don't thread on me" Ratiu
_______________________________________________
RLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lug.ro/mailman/listinfo/rlug
