> This simply means that you must be responsible for picking a responsible > host. I think the choice is important enough that its very worth it. > If you have a centralized solution, and for some reason (finiacial, a > fire, an earthquake, war) they collapse, then everyone goes down with > them. > I think that its proven that lots of smaller organizations provide for > stability better than one big group who becomes too powerful.
This is the reason that most larger organizations ship backups to secure remote backup locations. So what do you think about the other idea of distributing data around? The problem with trusting a lot of small organizations is that they often don't provide remote backups, and so if the site goes down because of the situations you have described and your project is housed there, you are still up the creek. If you distribute the data among multiple sites, it is more likely to not be lost in the face of the lack of funds. Matthew M. Copeland
