Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Christian Pernegger wrote:
I believe you are confusing raid with backup.
For lots of people the primary role of RAID is as a protection against
data-loss nowadays. Backups just aren't feasible/cost-effective
anymore for the amounts of data involved. Sticking your head in the
sand and repeating that mantra doesn't change that and it isn't
helping.
Well, claiming that RAID will protect your data under all circumstances
isn't helping either. Backups will actually protect against such things
as rm -rf:ing the wrong directory or mkfs:ing the wrong device, etc.
Things that RAID will never protect against.
And I don't see how backups aren't feasable, USB/network harddrives keep
pace with in-box harddrive sizes just fine. Offsite backup might be
trickier/costlier, so you might constrain those to just the data that
you would be really sad to see gone if the house burns down (photo
album, own creations, etc).
/Mattias Wadenstein
--
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
Sir - Whereas Neil, et al, profess that RAID is NOT equal to BACKUP -
Most of us know that tape backup is VERY costly, in several ways, in our
multi-terrabyte situations. Your mention of USB/network solutions does
beg the obvious question-- How would one do USB/network solutions
without some degree of encoded backup, and trust? BTW, worse yet is
implied trust in Cloud, eh?
And then, you say:
--
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
