Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Steve Cousins wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I'm sure "slow" is a relative term, compared to backing up TBs of
data and trying to restore them. Not to mention the lack of
inexpensive TB size backup media. That's totally unavailable at the
moment, I'll live with what I have, thanks.
You don't backup your RAID arrays? Yikes! For certain data this
would be fine (data that you can recreate easily) but it sounds like
this isn't the case for you otherwise you'd just wipe the array and
recreate the data. There are other modes of failure than just the
drives themselves (file system corruption for instance) so it is wise
to do backups, even on "redundant" systems.
Good luck,
Steve
I agree here, RAID is no substitute for backups.
Neither is a 2nd copy on another machine, if it isn't something you can
store off site, it's not a backup. One of the few things I liked about
working for {a major telco} was that they had a "smoking hole" recovery
policy, what do you do when the data center is a smoking hole. I don't
get that kind of budget in other places.
--
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
