On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Bruce Mitchener <[email protected]>wrote:
> If your schemas are next to your data and part of the same storage system, > aren't you also similarly worried about protecting your data against loss > and corruption? Absolutly. Still, things happen. It may be the number of times I've seen odd corruption cause trouble in supposedly reliable systems, but I like being careful. > I'm not sure why one would be separate from the other in terms of backups, > disaster prevention or recovery? > Think of every Mysql, Oracle, MS-SQL server instance out there.What percentage of them are backed up properly? Certainly not 100%. What about embedded storage systems, on phones, cameras, iPad, field-devices, everywhere? What about filesystems? (We have redundant superblocks and fsck for a reason, even with journaling). Every one of those systems, at some point, has had corruption that could have caused major pain for a user, but was mitigated by some sensible safety checks on the part of a developer. I have seen enough small and larger corruptions to know that the world is a nasty nasty place for real software operations, and desire some sensible safety nets. I hope those give you some insights into my motivations. I understand someone choosing to make a different choice, but those are my sensibilities.
