This solution sounds nice, I can even imagine setting up an additional
machine (on the same location though) to have a somewhat galvanic
isolation between the disks. Only fire, earthquake and a neutronbomb
would affect such a backup solution.
However, I could use a push in the right direction
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 10:35:49AM +0100, Joachim Dagerot wrote:
This solution sounds nice, I can even imagine setting up an additional
machine (on the same location though) to have a somewhat galvanic
isolation between the disks. Only fire, earthquake and a neutronbomb
would affect such a
| Before certain events in New York, we used to talk about
hypothetical
| jumbo jets when considering our disaster plans. Secure off-site
| backups are a necessity. Take care thought that the off-site
location
| really is secure. I did hear that some of the businesses in the
World
| Trade
On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 04:35, Joachim Dagerot wrote:
This solution sounds nice, I can even imagine setting up an additional
machine (on the same location though) to have a somewhat galvanic
isolation between the disks. Only fire, earthquake and a neutronbomb
would affect such a backup solution.
| As you with good memories know, I lost 3000 pictures of my first
sons
| first year this month. I did have a RAID-5 system with fresh
disks,
| however, shit happens and I have a feeling that this could have
been
| avoided if I read my log files better.
|
| I'm sorry that you lost data.
Joachim Dagerot writes:
I realise you are right. The thing is that this is a home system
and I have (had!) around 230 GB of data that was
non-replicable. I am not aware of a deasent backup system that
can handle that amount of data.
There are systems that will put 160 GB
On Sunday 28 December 2003 10:27 am, Robert Huff wrote:
Joachim Dagerot writes:
I realise you are right. The thing is that this is a home system
and I have (had!) around 230 GB of data that was
non-replicable. I am not aware of a deasent backup system that
can handle that amount of
On Sun, 2003-12-28 at 10:27, Robert Huff wrote:
There are systems that will put 160 GB (uncompressed) on a
single tape ... they'll just run you $3000-3500.
If, on the other hand, you think of it as a yearly full dump
(split over multiple tapes) plus monthly incrementals then a DLT
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:14:47 -0500
C. Ulrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have had a dedicated file server on my home network for years. It
serves out files to clients on the network via SMB and HTTP. This
machine stores all of my permanent (and not so permanent) data and has
two large
On Sun, 2003-12-28 at 16:30, Massimiliano Stucchi wrote:
So why not use a cheap IDE RAID controller and do RAID1 ? I think it
would be much safer, and reduce the amount of time needed to restore the
system once a hard drive fails. We use RAID1 with a spare drive on our
web and email servers
10 matches
Mail list logo
