| Pat Regan on 31 Oct 2005 16:42:12 -0000 |
|
bergman@merctech.com wrote: > Here are some questions I suggest that you consider before going any further: > I agree with everything you said here. I didn't want to sound like a Backup Nazi like I usually do, though :). > At a minimum, to achieve any redundancy, you need a RAID-5 configuration. The > number "5" has nothing to do with the number of disks, but (coindicently), > you'd need 5x250GB disks. > If he wants to keep the 4 drives, he can use 300-350 GB drives :). >>From my point of view, backup-to-disk only barely qualifies as a "backup > solution". It offers virtually no archive capability, it's very difficult to > send the data off-site, and has a high risk of failure, compared to > technologies like tape. Of course, it's cheap & easy. > Backups to disk are good protection from accidental file deletion, and they make a good staging area for writing real backups to be sent off site. As far as protection from hardware failure, they aren't much more than a "delayed RAID." Pat Attachment:
signature.asc ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|