ac on 18 Mar 2017 00:20:46 -0700

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PLUG] Avoid Arvixe at all costs!

On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:57:00 -0400
Rich Kulawiec <> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:54:40AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > I tend not to back up my OS, but only data I can't reinstall or
> > repurchase: In other words, data created by me. I might revisit that
> > stance later.
> I'm going to try to convince you to revisit that stance. ;)
> My backup philosophy since forever has been "every file on every
> filesystem".
+1  - get everything (if the costs/setup/numbers makes sense)

and, as Rich has already said 90%  of it all I wish to add that on
scale it is also a costs issue, so the packet/san/etc costs of xTB, the
costs of disaster recovery and the costs of knowing what was intruded
(investigative costs) and the business risks related to all costs
if the scale is small, then simply rotating a dump and running file on
git/bash/whatever makes much more financial (and risk) sense
if it is a stock standard (duplicated) - so i guess most of everything
said in this thread makes perfect sense to everyone saying that on
their own scale.

> There's no guarantee that any of this will do the slightest good, but
> since it's quite likely the different between backing up 18.4T and
> 18.7T, and since it can all be done with automation, why not?
> Note: this only works to a certain scale: it's not going to work
> so well with 5K systems, and then different strategies are called for.

Please forgive my ignorance, but what exactly are "5k systems" to you?
(to me 5k systems are probably something else - as in my understanding
of 5k systems - backup is redundant)


Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --
Announcements -
General Discussion  --