On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Aaron McCaleb <[email protected]> wrote: > > Remember, though: The point of this is not to determine a suitable > backup capacity. The point is to quantify the risk exposure of > undesirable data-loss events, preferably into a monetary value that > can then be compared to the expense of purchasing > hardware/software/maintenance for a backup solution. >
From this perspective you are probably more concerned with a) the amount of time it would take to reproduce the data, and b) the productivity lost during the time in which the data is unavailable. The data itself has no inherent value (and may have an inherent risk); what is valuable is the improved productivity that having the data provides and/or how it assists in making good choices for the company. Therefore "churn", while important in choosing a backup system, is not really important in quantifying the value in the data. It is, however, far easier to measure. You may instead wish to quantify the value of a backup solution, instead of the data itself. For example a backup system that reduces the cost of "a", above, (by keeping multiple backups for example) would be more valuable than one that doesn't. -- Perfection is just a word I use occasionally with mustard. --Atom Powers-- _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
