Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

> From: Sean Caron > the worst thing on the market since the old Quantum Bigfoot Just out of curiousity, what was so bad about the Bigfoot? Noel

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

I began my first job ever working at a computer repair shop not soon after those drives first hit the market and I recall them being pretty dodgy. I replaced many Bigfoot drives when I was in high school! They were also dog slow ... 3600 RPM, I think ... The quality got better as time went on, if

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 06:31:46PM -0600, ben wrote: > On 9/24/2015 6:16 PM, Al Kossow wrote: > > >Word on the street is stay away from WD for the near future. They've had > >massive > >QC problems. > > > I wonder what is happening in the clouds? They pay very close attention and are _very_

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

The WDC REs are not bad drives at all but IMO Hitachi Ultrastar is the best line going right now. I have been working with them for some time from 0.5T through 3T under very high duty cycle and they are fairly bulletproof. The REs will do the work, but I have seen higher failure rates on them

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

Er, sorry, HDAs, not HBAs :O Best, Sean On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Sean Caron wrote: > The WDC REs are not bad drives at all but IMO Hitachi Ultrastar is the > best line going right now. I have been working with them for some time from > 0.5T through 3T under very high

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 06:55:02PM -0400, Sean Caron wrote: > since the old Quantum Bigfoot There's no need to swear :-) mcl

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 09/25/2015 07:04 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 06:55:02PM -0400, Sean Caron wrote: since the old Quantum Bigfoot There's no need to swear :-) I know it's strange, but I still have a couple of systems that occasionally get used for some legacy bit of hardware or another

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 09/24/2015 04:30 PM, Alexander Schreiber wrote: IMHO, you want to buy at one generation below the current max capacity on the assumption that they ironed out the bugs on that one. So, if you were to move up from the 500GB SATA drives to the "next generation", which would you choose?

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015, Chuck Guzis wrote: On 09/24/2015 04:30 PM, Alexander Schreiber wrote: IMHO, you want to buy at one generation below the current max capacity on the assumption that they ironed out the bugs on that one. So, if you were to move up from the 500GB SATA drives to the "next

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 01:02:03PM -0700, Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 09/15/2015 12:32 PM, et...@757.org wrote: > >>Pictures and movies can be original work - perhaps not for you, > >>certainly mostly not for me (I have a few original pictures, but > >>only a few), but I know graphic designers and

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 03:19:27PM -0400, Mouse wrote: > > I think a more important issue in backing up is "How many GENERATIONS > > to you keep around?" > > For many purposes, that's an important consideration, yes. There's > something (small) I back up weekly for which I keep the most recent >

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 03:32:27PM -0400, et...@757.org wrote: > >Pictures and movies can be original work - perhaps not for you, > >certainly mostly not for me (I have a few original pictures, but only a > >few), but I know graphic designers and photographers who have probably > >produced at

Re: Is tape dead?

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:36:57AM -0700, Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 09/15/2015 10:49 AM, Mouse wrote: > > >If the police needed to even _consider_ doing that, they need to fire > >whoever decided they didn't need proper backups. (And whoever was > >responsible for the mistake that got it running

Re: Is tape dead?

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 01:49:56PM -0400, Mouse wrote: > >> Ever heard of CRYPTOWALL ? I think that I got it from looking at > >> PDFs on the web while doing some research. [...] > > I trust you've now switched PDF viewers to one that doesn't > gratuitously execute (attempts at) live content? >

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 9/24/15 5:31 PM, ben wrote: I wonder what is happening in the clouds? Mere mortals will never know. Backblaze is the closest you will ever hear a peep from, any they are teeny beany in terms of buying drives.

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

Up until now, I've confined my purchasing to 500GB drives on the hope that they're more reliable than the 3-5TB monsters. Is this a mistake? 1tb was the transition to vertical recording. They had the tech down by 2tb. Seagate 1 and 1.5s are utter crap. I had a dozen 1.5s that NEVER worked.

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 9/24/2015 6:16 PM, Al Kossow wrote: Word on the street is stay away from WD for the near future. They've had massive QC problems. I wonder what is happening in the clouds? Ben.

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 21/09/15 14:15, Noel Chiappa wrote: > From: tony duell > In some cases it should be possible to write a machine code program > that executes on 2 processors with wildly different instruciton sets. I have this bit set that I was told (or something, the memory is _very_ vague)

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 21/09/15 01:55, Jerome H. Fine wrote: I used the above example when I created a CD which had files to be used with RT-11 in addition to being a normal CD under Windows. I found that for a normal CD under Windows, sectors 0 to 15 (hard disk blocks 0 to 63) on the CD were empty. I don't know

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 2015-09-24 01:15, Antonio Carlini wrote: On 21/09/15 14:15, Noel Chiappa wrote: > From: tony duell > In some cases it should be possible to write a machine code program > that executes on 2 processors with wildly different instruciton sets. I have this bit set that I was

Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

> From: tony duell > In some cases it should be possible to write a machine code program > that executes on 2 processors with wildly different instruciton sets. I have this bit set that I was told (or something, the memory is _very_ vague) that early versions of the KL-10 had this

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:15:13AM -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: tony duell > > > In some cases it should be possible to write a machine code program > > that executes on 2 processors with wildly different instruciton sets. > > I have this bit set that I was told (or

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 2015-09-21 23:32, David Brownlee wrote: On 21 September 2015 at 01:55, Jerome H. Fine wrote: Fred Cisin wrote: On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Jon Elson wrote: Well, one would assume this is also OS specific. I would guess it would be incredibly hard to make a "disk" virus

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 2015-09-21 15:15, Noel Chiappa wrote: > From: tony duell > In some cases it should be possible to write a machine code program > that executes on 2 processors with wildly different instruciton sets. I have this bit set that I was told (or something, the memory is _very_

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

> On Sep 20, 2015, at 8:55 PM, Jerome H. Fine wrote: > >> ... > > I used the above example when I created a CD which had files to be used > with RT-11 in addition to being a normal CD under Windows. I found that > for a normal CD under Windows, sectors 0 to 15 (hard

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 21 September 2015 at 01:55, Jerome H. Fine wrote: >>Fred Cisin wrote: > >> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Jon Elson wrote: >> >>> Well, one would assume this is also OS specific. I would guess it would >>> be incredibly hard to make a "disk" virus that would work on greatly >>>

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 20 September 2015 at 05:58, John Foust wrote: > Someone's demonstrated you can hide in the firmware of hard drives. And access the hypervisor layer of an OS in various ways from programs executing inside a VM. So, for instance, much malware self-inactivates if it detects

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

>Fred Cisin wrote: On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Jon Elson wrote: Well, one would assume this is also OS specific. I would guess it would be incredibly hard to make a "disk" virus that would work on greatly differing OS's like Linux AND Windows. No telling what would happen if one of these disk

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

At 05:57 AM 9/20/2015, Liam Proven wrote: >On 20 September 2015 at 05:58, John Foust wrote: >> Someone's demonstrated you can hide in the firmware of hard drives. > >And access the hypervisor layer of an OS in various ways from programs >executing inside a VM. Yeah, that

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 09/19/2015 10:58 PM, John Foust wrote: The other recent development that makes me want to quit? Someone's demonstrated you can hide in the firmware of hard drives. https://blog.kaspersky.com/equation-hdd-malware/7623/ - John Well, one would assume this is also OS specific. I would guess

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 9/20/2015 11:53 AM, Jon Elson wrote: On 09/19/2015 10:58 PM, John Foust wrote: The other recent development that makes me want to quit? Someone's demonstrated you can hide in the firmware of hard drives. https://blog.kaspersky.com/equation-hdd-malware/7623/ - John Well, one would assume

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Jon Elson wrote: Well, one would assume this is also OS specific. I would guess it would be incredibly hard to make a "disk" virus that would work on greatly differing OS's like Linux AND Windows. No telling what would happen if one of these disk viruses got onto a hard

RE: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

> It is possible to create an executable file that identifies the OS that it > is running on and does a conditional jump to different code, assuming that > the processor uses the same instruction set. In some cases it should be possible to write a machine code program that executes on 2

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

>> I would guess it would be incredibly hard to make a "disk" virus >> that would work on greatly differing OS's like Linux AND Windows. This is actually a good reason to encrypt your whole disk. The disk can't serve up working malware if the bits it returns get mangled by decryption with an

re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

At 09:55 AM 9/18/2015, Fred Cisin wrote: >CryptoLocker has been around for a year. I don't think that McAfee nor AVG >see it. "Well, it's not a VIRUS, . . ." Yes and no. The bad guys work very hard to evade detection. They're always developing new wrappers to deliver the old payloads. The

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 18 September 2015 at 19:10, Dave G4UGM wrote: > But you do use a browser and all of those have holes... True, but they do on any OS. There are far fewer 'sploits for OS X or for Linux than for Windows (e.g. the famed WMF decoder one) -- andf by avoiding IE or

re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, John Foust wrote: As to why your antivirus didn't see it... there's always a few days before the latest infection mechanisms are documented and added to the AV updates. CryptoLocker has been around for a year. I don't think that McAfee nor AVG see it. "Well, it's not a

re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

At 01:01 PM 9/16/2015, Fred Cisin wrote: >But, those still require a gullibility error on the part of the user, don't >they? Do the ads actually load and run the ransomware, or just present the >fraudulent upgrade offer to bring it in? The bad guys are slipping silent-install vulnerability

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 18 September 2015 at 18:25, Dave G4UGM wrote: > Are you 100 % sure you don't need anti-malware... > > http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/08/05/apple-to-patch-actively-exploited-privilege-escalation-bug-in-os-x-10105---report > > from what I have seen the fix from Apple

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, Liam Proven wrote: However, Cryptolocker et al spread by fooling users into running something they shouldn't run. I'm sorry, but you got suckered. Absolutely. I now think that it was a "We're Adobe, click here to update Flash Player" or maybe "Java update" But, I never got

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 18 September 2015 at 18:49, Fred Cisin wrote: > Absolutely. > I now think that it was a "We're Adobe, click here to update Flash Player" > or maybe "Java update" I can see how one of those, done well, might fool most of us. I am not one of those daredevil ascetics who runs

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 18 September 2015 at 16:55, Fred Cisin wrote: > CryptoLocker has been around for a year. I don't think that McAfee nor AVG > see it. "Well, it's not a VIRUS, . . ." Former AVG employee here. I quit; this is not an official statement. CryptoLocker/CryptoWall/etc are

RE: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

t; Proven > Sent: 18 September 2015 17:17 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > <cctalk@classiccmp.org> > Subject: Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?] > > On 18 September 2015 at 16:55, Fred Cisin <ci...@xenosoft.com> wrote: > > CryptoLock

RE: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

> -Original Message- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Liam > Proven > Sent: 18 September 2015 17:47 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > <cctalk@classiccmp.org> > Subject: Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 09/18/2015 09:49 AM, Fred Cisin wrote: On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, Liam Proven wrote: However, Cryptolocker et al spread by fooling users into running something they shouldn't run. I'm sorry, but you got suckered. Absolutely. I now think that it was a "We're Adobe, click here to update Flash

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

On 09/17/2015 09:04 AM, Paul Koning wrote: They may not run those, but those certainly have been preserved as part of the "controlfreaks" effort. COS, Scope, MACE, Kronos, NOS, NOS/BE -- all those have been run on the DtCyber emulator. In fact, a copy of a production PLATO system, on NOS

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

> On Sep 16, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > > On 09/16/2015 12:23 PM, Sean Caron wrote: >> And I actually got to play with NOS ... many years after the fact ... >> never thought I'd see that! What the cray-cyber.org guys are doing is >> remarkable. > > Sad that they

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

On 09/17/2015 12:49 AM, Dave G4UGM wrote: "Security" isn't just about secure software, it’s a total mind set. One slip and you are doomed. I am pretty careful but even I managed to install the d@mmed Ask tool bar whilst updating Java... .. in my humble opinion many Linux users are rather more

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

On 09/17/2015 12:49 AM, Dave G4UGM wrote: in my humble opinion many Linux users are rather more blasé about the security of the OS that they should be Absolutely true, and I will admit that I have fallen into the trap, too. But, it has worked well so far! Jon

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

On 09/17/2015 09:58 AM, Paul Koning wrote: It turns out my memory was faulty. I remember discussions about SCOPE, but I don't actually see a copy. There's COS, SMM 4.0, Kronos 1.0 and 2.1.2, lots of NOS from 1.2 through 2.8.7 and about 8 in between, NOS/BE 1.2 and 1.5. No 64 bit, no 7600 --

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

> On Sep 17, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Al Kossow wrote: > > On 9/17/15 9:58 AM, Paul Koning wrote: >> >> DtCyber is open source > > but their OS collection is not. > they're called "controlfreaks" for a reason. Yes, because they like Control Data products. From what I

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

> On Sep 17, 2015, at 12:30 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > > On 09/17/2015 09:04 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > >> They may not run those, but those certainly have been preserved as >> part of the "controlfreaks" effort. COS, Scope, MACE, Kronos, NOS, >> NOS/BE -- all those have been

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

Chuck, It sounds like you might enjoy the Controlfreaks group. It's controlled access but basically you just need to ask. http://www.controlfreaks.org has a pointer. paul

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

On 9/17/15 9:58 AM, Paul Koning wrote: DtCyber is open source but their OS collection is not. they're called "controlfreaks" for a reason.

Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

I took on a brand new client a while back, and before doing any real work for them they were hit by cryptolocker. I hadn't yet even done a "IT Review" for them, so didn't yet know what systems they had in place. Thus, under the gun, I started looking at their backup setup, and found it

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

Windows? On 16-09-15 14:41, Jay West wrote: I took on a brand new client a while back, and before doing any real work for them they were hit by cryptolocker. I hadn't yet even done a "IT Review" for them, so didn't yet know what systems they had in place. Thus, under the gun, I started

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

On 9/16/2015 5:41 AM, Jay West wrote: ZFS is a good solution:) Is it a versioning file system? I know it handles large data sets. Does versioning or such as time machine setups (Mac OS type of backup) defeat the problem. I know you don't have time machine with PC's that get hit, are

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

ccl...@sydex.com> Date: 09/16/2015 11:54 AM (GMT-07:00) To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk@classiccmp.org> Subject: Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?] On 09/16/2015 11:20 AM, Al Kossow wrote: > On 9/16/15 11:15 AM, couryhouse wrote: > >> We have

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

was Re: Is tape dead?] On 9/16/15 11:15 AM, couryhouse wrote: > We have 10 years of backups.ed# > ever verified them?

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 9/16/15 11:15 AM, couryhouse wrote: We have 10 years of backups.ed# ever verified them?

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On 09/16/2015 11:20 AM, Al Kossow wrote: On 9/16/15 11:15 AM, couryhouse wrote: We have 10 years of backups.ed# ever verified them? Mine go back to sometime around 1980. I have customer records that go back to 1987. Curiously, we got a note from a fellow needing an update to CopyQM.

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

On 09/16/2015 11:29 AM, Paul Koning wrote: I never had any incentive to look for holes in CDC operating systems, but I still remember a simple hole I found in OS/360, about a month after I first wrote a program for that OS. It allowed anyone to run supervisor mode code with a couple dozen

Ransomware [was Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]]

> There is a ramsomware variant that encrypts the files but silently decrypts $ This depends on the backup-taking accessing the files in a way that doesn't trip the decryption. It also depends on nobody test-restoring from the backups, or at least not sanity-checking the results if they do. It

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

> On Sep 16, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: > ... > Neither AVG (resident), nor McAfee (manually run weekly) detected my > infection of Cryptowall. What WILL detect it? Linux? :-) paul

re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Robert Feldman wrote: There is a ramsomware variant that encrypts the files but silently decrypts them when they are accessed. It does this for six months before deactivating the on-demand decryption and displaying the ransom message, the theory being that by that time all

re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

We have 10 years of backups.ed# Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone Original message From: Robert Feldman <r_a_feld...@hotmail.com> Date: 09/16/2015 10:40 AM (GMT-07:00) To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

On 09/16/2015 12:23 PM, Sean Caron wrote: And I actually got to play with NOS ... many years after the fact ... never thought I'd see that! What the cray-cyber.org guys are doing is remarkable. Sad that they don't have any early software. In the beginning there was COS (Chippewa Operating

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

Cyber systems didn't get much love from the H/P kids back in the day :O http://phrack.org/issues/18/5.html That said; NOS is one of the few mainframe systems ever really discussed in Phrack... MVS/TSO and VM/CMS you also see occasionally, but beyond that, it seems like most of the G-files were

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

And I actually got to play with NOS ... many years after the fact ... never thought I'd see that! What the cray-cyber.org guys are doing is remarkable. Best, Sean On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Sean Caron wrote: > Cyber systems didn't get much love from the H/P kids back

Re: Ransomware [was Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]]

>Mouse wrote: There is a ramsomware variant that encrypts the files but silently decrypts $ This depends on the backup-taking accessing the files in a way that doesn't trip the decryption. It also depends on nobody test-restoring from the backups, or at least not sanity-checking the

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

On 09/16/2015 01:29 PM, Paul Koning wrote: I never had any incentive to look for holes in CDC operating systems, but I still remember a simple hole I found in OS/360, about a month after I first wrote a program for that OS. It allowed anyone to run supervisor mode code with a couple dozen

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

On 09/16/2015 01:10 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: Has cryptolocker ever invaded the world of Unix/Linux/BSD? It would be much harder. In general, browsers do not activate just any file you would download. There are weaknesses in various graphical/video add-ons to browsers that may cause

Re: Ransomware [was Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]]

>> Thus, defense in depth: >> [...] >> (3) Test-restore from your backups periodically. > As for (3), I don't understand how a test-restore would help. The theory is, if the restore restores good contents then the backup contains good contents. > Even if the files have been encrypted, I don't

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

There were / are bugs in the mpg and jpg libraries that allow for remote execution that may or may not have been fixed. If it can screw over cell phones running on Linux, it can screw you over if you are running on garden variety Linux. Since we are all users on an ongoing basis of

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

On 9/16/2015 6:36 PM, Jon Elson wrote: On 09/16/2015 01:29 PM, Paul Koning wrote: I never had any incentive to look for holes in CDC operating systems, but I still remember a simple hole I found in OS/360, about a month after I first wrote a program for that OS. It allowed anyone to run

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

This brings up something that's always baffled me. Why does a user's (or worse, the entire system's) files have to be immediately accessible to any application wanting to take a look. Take a legacy example, SCOPE or NOS on a CDC mainframe. At start of job, you start out with a null file set

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

> On Sep 16, 2015, at 2:10 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > > This brings up something that's always baffled me. > > Why does a user's (or worse, the entire system's) files have to be > immediately accessible to any application wanting to take a look. > > Take a legacy example,

re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

>From: Mouse > >> I think a more important issue in backing up is "How many GENERATIONS > >to you keep around?" > >For many purposes, that's an important consideration, yes. There's >something (small) I back up weekly for which I keep the most recent >seven backups,

Re: Cryptolocker (was RE: Is tape dead?

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, jwsmobile wrote: One system, or did it propagate thru the organization? Did you eradicate it, then get a tool for the decrypt? Not very hard to stop it, but the damage that it does to the files (RSA encryption) is irreparable, unless you pay the ransom. A significant

Re: Is tape dead?

On 15 September 2015 at 13:52, Fred Cisin wrote: > Would anybody really trust the miscreants to provide the key after the > ransom is paid? > They actually do deliver. It's their "business model"; if they didn't deliver the keys to decrypt your data after paying them, then

Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]

I ride herd on maybe three or four thousand Hitachi Ultrastar A7K{2,3,4}000 2 TB and 3 TB disks and they take a real pounding with the workload here and they have just been fantastic ... great drives; very solid ... Also used the WDC RE4 when Thailand got flooded out a few years ago and we were in

Re: Is tape dead?

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015, Philip Pemberton wrote: > On 15/09/15 19:27, Eric Smith wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 6:38 PM, drlegendre . wrote: > >> To the cloud, to the CLOUD!! > > > > There is no cloud, just other people's computers. > > "Real men don't make backups, they

Re: Is tape dead?

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 6:38 PM, drlegendre . wrote: > To the cloud, to the CLOUD!! There is no cloud, just other people's computers.

Re: Is tape dead?

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Richard Loken wrote: > These are LTO-5 > cartridges that can hold up to 30 Tbyte of compressed data and it can be > written on the tape with astonishing speed. That's one heck of a compression ratio, given that the native

Re: Is tape dead?

On 09/15/2015 11:49 AM, Richard Loken wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Chuck Guzis wrote: Maybe that's changed today. I remember seeing a figure of 11 debugged lines of code per day per programmer as the average for a GSA programmer back in the 1980s. I remeber that statistic from my youth, too.

Re: Is tape dead?

Well in this case they claim 15Tbyte uncompressed but 100Gbyte uncompressed is still a lot more than a DLT-IV will hold. 15GByte uncompressed and 100Gbyte compressed? Tape companies always misrepresent their products. Compressed doesn't count.

Re: Is tape dead?

On Sep 15, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Mouse wrote: > (3) "Oh no." This includes things like disk drives dying. (3a) “ does that smell like smoke to you?” - > offsite backups...

Re: Is tape dead?

>> (3) "Oh no." This includes things like disk drives dying. > (3a) “ does that smell like smoke to you?” - > offsite > backups... Yes. Offsite backups are an important piece for many threat models. But that's mostly orthogonal to whether they're designed to defend against my (1), (2), or (3);

Re: Is tape dead?

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Chuck Guzis wrote: > Maybe that's changed today. I remember seeing a figure of 11 debugged > lines of code per day per programmer as the average for a GSA programmer > back in the 1980s. I remeber that statistic from my youth, too. What kind of code? Fortran? APL? Cobol?

Re: Is tape dead?

>> Maybe that's changed today. I remember seeing a figure of 11 >> debugged lines of code per day per programmer as the average for a >> GSA programmer back in the 1980s. > I remeber that statistic from my youth, too. What kind of code? > Fortran? APL? Cobol? Assember? C? I think the

Re: Is tape dead?

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Guy Dawson wrote: Delete it on the master and have it faithfully deleted on the replica. Yeah. Backup should NOT be connected to the computer that it is backing up, and should be a drive, NOT a connected computer. Ever heard of CRYPTOWALL ? I think that I got it from

Re: Is tape dead?

if needed. -Original Message- From: Dave G4UGM Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 7:13 PM To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts' Subject: RE: Is tape dead? I spoke to my former employer and they are ditching tape. They want off-site replication and if they have an off-site

Re: Is tape dead?

Ever heard of CRYPTOWALL ? I think that I got it from looking at PDFs on the web while doing some research. It's a trojan, not a virus. It runs in the background encrypting files. Then it pops up a message demanding 500 euros for the key! Sounds like Cryptolocker. Even the police paid the

Re: Is tape dead?

>> Delete it on the master and have it faithfully deleted on the replica. > Backup should NOT be connected to the computer that it is backing up, > and should be a drive, NOT a connected computer. Depends on why you have backups - that is, what kind of trouble the backups are intended to defend

Re: Is tape dead?

Ever heard of CRYPTOWALL ? I think that I got it from looking at PDFs on the web while doing some research. It's a trojan, not a virus. It runs in the background encrypting files. Then it pops up a message demanding 500 euros for the key! On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, et...@757.org wrote: Sounds

Re: Is tape dead?

On 15 September 2015 at 19:40, Fred Cisin wrote: > AVG and McAfee. not necessarily the best stuff. > Scan, while the malware was screwing stuff up in the background, did not > find anything to complain about! Until a few weeks ago I worked for AVG. *Don't* run 2 resident

RE: Is tape dead?

> -Original Message- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of TeoZ > Sent: 15 September 2015 18:24 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > <cctalk@classiccmp.org> > Subject: Re: Is tape dead? > > Sometimes I think ma

Re: Is tape dead?

On 09/15/2015 10:49 AM, Mouse wrote: If the police needed to even _consider_ doing that, they need to fire whoever decided they didn't need proper backups. (And whoever was responsible for the mistake that got it running there to begin with, either whoever decided to let it run or whoever

Re: Is tape dead?

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Eric Smith wrote: > That's one heck of a compression ratio, given that the native > (uncompressed) capacity of an LTO-5 cartridge is 1.5 TB. Usually the > vendors claim 2.5:1 compression, but obviously the actual compression Of course it is 1.5Tbyte native and 3.0Tbyte

Re: Is tape dead?

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, drlegendre . wrote: To the clown, to the CLOWN!! =P Fixed that for ya. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks

  1   2   >